Washington v. Falco
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Washington v. Falco, Judge McMahon denied Washington’s federal detention petition because abstention barred intervention in his pending state criminal case.
Dexter Washington’s federal petition was denied, leaving his pending state criminal proceeding subject to the state court’s process; the opinion does not decide the merits of his indictment challenges.
What happened
In Washington v. Falco, Dexter Washington, who was awaiting trial and representing himself, challenged the indictment and criminal charges pending against him in state court. He claimed problems with the laboratory testing, duplicate charges, and the handling of evidence.
Washington asked the federal court to hold a hearing and stop the state criminal proceedings. The court said the state case was still pending, involved important state interests, and provided a place for him to raise his objections. Washington did not show bad faith, harassment, serious and immediate irreparable harm, or that the state court was inadequate.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the petition under the rule requiring federal courts to abstain from interfering with qualifying state criminal proceedings. The court also terminated all other pending matters, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Falco · No. 1:19-cv-09408
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Dexter Washington, a pretrial detainee at the Rockland County Jail, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the validity of a pending state-court indictment. He proceeded without a lawyer and paid the $5 filing fee.
Washington alleged that a highway patrol officer stopped him for a traffic violation, that a breathalyzer test was unsuccessful, and that he was arrested. After another test, which showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.012, police told him that drugs had allegedly been found in his car. A felony complaint charged him with possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, and related misdemeanors. He was arraigned and held without bail at the Rockland County Jail.
Washington later received a laboratory report identifying the alleged substance as Fentanyl and Acetyl Fentanyl. A Rockland County grand jury then indicted him on charges involving possession of those substances, possession with intent to sell, and lesser misdemeanor charges.
Claims and Requested Relief
Washington asserted three grounds for relief: that his due-process and equal-protection rights were violated when the grand jury reviewed the supplemental laboratory report; that the indictment was defective because it charged possession of Fentanyl and Acetyl Fentanyl as separate crimes; and that the chain of custody for the substance found in his car was broken.
He requested an immediate hearing concerning his alleged unlawful imprisonment and an emergency injunction stopping the state criminal proceedings until the federal case was resolved.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the rule from Younger v. Harris, which generally requires a federal court to refrain from interfering with a pending state criminal proceeding unless special circumstances show bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court explained that a state criminal proceeding ordinarily provides an adequate forum for raising federal constitutional challenges.
The court found that abstention was appropriate because Washington sought federal review or intervention in an ongoing state criminal case. New York had an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, Washington had not alleged facts showing bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury, and he had not shown that the state court was inadequate for presenting his constitutional objections.
Disposition
The court denied Washington’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It terminated all other pending matters. Because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, the court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.