JAMES R. DOBY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD STRENGTH AND T.H. GRAY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Fourth Amendment claims are not generally cognizable in federal habeas corpus and that abstention is appropriate pending state appellate review of the conviction.
A state prisoner filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations during his arrest and search. The magistrate dismi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Doby, a Georgia prisoner, filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 alleging violations to his constitutional rights during an allegedly illegal arrest and search and seizure at his home. Defendants are police officers who made the arrest. Doby was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. The conviction is presently being reviewed by the Georgia Court of Appeals.
A magistrate, conducting the proceedings pursuant to a stipulation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), dismissed appellant’s case. He found that Doby’s § 1983 action was actually an attack on his state court conviction and therefore must be brought in a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after exhaustion of state remedies. See Fulford v. Klein, 529 F. 2d 377 (5th Cir.1976), adhered to en banc, 550 F. 2d 342 (1977). Doby filed a timely notice of appeal.
We reverse and remand. Petitioner’s complaint alleges numerous violations of his constitutional rights, most of which are Fourth Amendment violations. Contrary to the magistrate’s opinion and order, Fourth Amendment claims are not generally recognizable in federal habeas corpus. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). Therefore, Doby will not be able to bring them in a federal habeas petition.
Nevertheless, abstention is still appropriate. Apparently, Doby raised the Fourth Amendment violations at his state court trial. That conviction is currently being reviewed by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Therefore, we believe that federal abstention is proper until the state appellate court has decided the relevant issues. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 604-07, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 1208-10, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); see also McCurry v. Allen, 606 F. 2d 795 (8th Cir.1979). Therefore, the order of the magistrate dismissing the complaint without prejudice is reversed and the case is remanded. It is further ordered that the court abstain from resolving the merits of petitioner’s claims until the Georgia Court of Appeals2 rules on the relevant issues.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
. Or the Georgia Supreme Court, should it decide to hear the case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1988)…ourts may not adjudicate respondents’ [*210] damages claims until the conclusion of the pending state criminal proceedings.5 See, e. g., McCurry v. Allen, 606 F. 2d 795, 799 (CA8 1979), rev’d on other grounds, 449 U. S. 90 (1980); Doby v. Strength, 758 F. 2d 1405, 1406 (CA11 1985). The Court also appears to rest its decision upon respondents’ assurance that they will seek a stay of their federal damages action on remand, holding their claims in abeyance until the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings…
-
Prather v. Norman, 901 F.2d 915 (11th Cir. 1990)…529, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988); Goddard v. Larsen, 890 F. 2d 416 (6th Cir.1989) (unpublished, available on Westlaw); Young v. Kenney, 887 F. 2d 237, 240 (9th Cir.1989); Williams v. Hepting, 844 F. 2d 138, 144-45 (3d Cir.1988). See also Doby v. Strength, 758 F. 2d 1405, 1406 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (holding that abstention until state court proceedings are completed is proper disposition of plaintiff’s § 1983 action seeking monetary relief for alleged fourth amendment violations). Cf. Traverso v. Penn, 874 F.…1 / 2
-
Tomasz Kosowski v. Vonderheide (M.D. Fla. 2025)…no adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.” Hughes v. Att'y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004). “The Eleventh Circuit has extended Younger to § 1983 cases seeking damages, Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405, 1406 (11th Cir. 1985), with the proper course of action being to stay the federal case rather than to dismiss it." Mellen v. Florida, No. 3:13-cv-1233-MMH-PDB, 2014 WL 5093885, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2014). Younger abstention is appropriate here…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1976)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (U.S. 1975)
- Fulford v. Klein, 529 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Fulford v. Klein, 550 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1977)
- McCURRY v. Allen, 606 F.2d 795 (8th Cir. 1979)