Asselin v. Boulder Cnty. Sheriff

• Decision Date: 05 April 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-cv-00144-GPG
• Parties: LINDSEY J. ASSELIN, Applicant, v. BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF, at Boulder County Jail, and RON HALE, Superintendent at CMHIP, and Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

LINDSEY J. ASSELIN, Applicant, v. BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF, at Boulder County Jail, andRON HALE, Superintendent at CMHIP, and Respondents.

Civil Action No. 16-cv-00144-GPG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

April 5, 2016

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Lindsey J. Asselin, is being held at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado (CMHIP). Ms. Asselin initiated this action on January 19, 2016, by filing a pleading titled, "Brief in Support of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241." (ECF No. 1).

On January 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher reviewed the pleading and instructed Ms. Asselin to file her claims on the court-approved Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 5). On February 8, 2016, Applicant filed an [Amended] Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 6). She has paid the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 7).

In the Amended § 2241 Application, Ms. Asselin raises the following claims:

1. At the May 27, 2015 hearing, Applicant was denied counsel, in violation of the 6th Amendment right to counsel.

2. The county court had no jurisdiction to order a competency evaluation or commit the Applicant to CMHIP custody, in violation of the 14^th Amendment.

3. Applicant's commitment to custody to complete a competency evaluation, ordered by the court at the September 10, 2015 hearing, violated Applicant's 5th and 14th Amendment right to due process. This hearing also violated the Applicant's 6th Amendment right to counsel.

4. Applicant was denied bail, in violation of the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the 6th and 14th Amendments.

5. The prosecutor withheld two emails from the victim to the prosecutor's office, which was exculpatory evidence. This violated the 6th and 14th Amendments.

6. The competency evaluation violated the 5th and 14th Amendments right to due process and the 6th Amendment.

7. While in custody, the Applicant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 6th Amendment.

(ECF No. 6 at 1-8). For relief, Applicant requests that she be released from her CMHIP commitment immediately.

On February 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gallagher entered an Order directing Respondent Hale to brief the procedural basis for Ms. Asselin's continued placement at CMHIP, and address the affirmative defense of exhaustion of state court remedies, as well as any jurisdictional issues, within 21 days of the February 11 Order. (ECF No. 8).

Respondent filed a Preliminary Response on March 3, 2016. (ECF No. 15). In the Preliminary Response, Respondent maintains that this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the Amended § 2241 Application pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Alternatively, Respondent argues that Applicant has not exhausted available state court remedies for her claims.

The Court must construe the Amended Application liberally because Ms. Asselin is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should notbe an advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. For the reasons stated below, the Amended Application will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. State Court Proceedings

On September 23, 2014, Ms. Asselin was arrested in Boulder County Case 2014M1605 and charged with misdemeanor third degree assault, knowingly or recklessly causing injury to another person (M1), in violation of COLO. REV. STAT. (C.R.S.) §18-3-204(1)(a). (ECF No. 15-1 at 2). The next day, the state court granted a criminal protection order against Applicant and she was released on bond. (Id. at 3).

On September 30, 2014, counsel entered an appearance for Ms. Asselin. (Id.). On May 27, 2015, the court granted Applicant's request that her attorney withdraw from the case. (Id. at 5). At a June 9, 2015 hearing, where Ms. Asselin appeared pro se, the court raised concerns about Applicant's competency. (Id.). The court ordered that Ms. Asselin complete a competency evaluation, while remaining on bond. (Id.). Additionally, the court appointed a public defender pending the outcome of the competency evaluation. (Id.).

On September 10, 2015, the court remanded Ms. Asselin to custody for a competency exam because she had failed to complete the evaluation ordered on June 9. (Id. at 6). On October 13, 2015, after CMHIP submitted a competency report to the Court, Applicant was found incompetent to proceed, pursuant to § 16-8.5-111(2), C.R.S., and committed to CMHIP for inpatient restoration to competency treatment. (See Order Finding Defendant Incompetent to Proceed and Committing Defendant for In-Patient Restoration to Competency, ECF No. 15-4; Order to Transport, ECF No. 15-5).

On October 21, 2015, the court granted Applicant's motion for a secondcompetency evaluation. (ECF No. 15-1 at 7). The motion was withdrawn on December 14, 2015. (Id. at 8). On December 16, 2015, the state court entered an Amended Order Finding Defendant Incompetent to Proceed and Committing Defendant for In-Patient Restoration to Competency. (ECF No. 15-6).

CMHIP reviewed Ms. Asselin's competency and submitted a report to the court on February 12, 2016. (ECF No. 15-1 at 9). CHMIP is required to submit its next competency report for review by the court on May 13, 2016, at which time the state court will review whether Applicant should remain committed to CMHIP. (Id.).

II. Statutory Basis for Applicant's Placement and Continued Placement at CMHIP

Boulder County Court has jurisdiction over Applicant's misdemeanor criminal charges under § 13-6-106(1)(a), C.R.S., and a duty to follow the provisions of the Colorado Criminal Code during Applicant's criminal proceedings. §§ 16-1-102, 103, C.R.S.

Under the Colorado Criminal Code, a court or a party may request that a criminal defendant's competency to proceed be evaluated, pursuant to § 16-8.5-102(2)(a), C.R.S. The court has a duty to raise the issue of defendant's competency if it is in doubt at any state of proceedings before it proceeds further. People v. Hendricks, 972 P.2d 1041 (Colo. App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000); Jones v. District Court, 617 P.2d. 803 (Colo. 1980). The court may either make a preliminary finding regarding competency or decide it needs additional information and order the defendant be evaluated. § 16-8.5-103(1), C.R.S. If the court orders the defendant to be evaluated at CMHIP, then the Hospital must prepare a report to the court. § 16-8.5-103(2), C.R.S.

Once a defendant is determined to be incompetent, the court has two options.The court may release the defendant from custody on bond, with conditions, if release would comply with court rules of criminal procedure. See § 16-8.5-111(2)(a), C.R.S. Or, if the court finds that the defendant is not eligible for release from custody, the court may commit the defendant to the custody of CMHIP. See § 16-8.5-111(2)(b), C.R.S. The state court must review the case of a defendant committed or confined as incompetent to proceed at least every three months to evaluate whether the defendant has been restored to competency and whether there is continued justification for commitment or confinement. § 16-8.5-116(2), C.R.S. The defendant cannot remain confined based on a finding of incompetency in a criminal matter for a period longer than the maximum term of confinement that could be imposed for the offenses charged. § 16-8.5-116(1), C.R.S.

III. Applicability of Younger abstention

Absent extraordinary or special circumstances, federal courts are prohibited from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997). Abstention is appropriate under Younger if three conditions are met: "(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges." Phelps, 122 F.3d at 889. The abstention principles of Younger are jurisdictional and apply when the petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding. See Dolack v. Allenbrand, 548 F.3d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1977).

In the instant action, all three of these conditions are met. Ms. Asselin is being prosecuted in an ongoing state criminal proceeding and she has failed to allege facts toshow that the state criminal proceeding is not an adequate forum to hear her constitutional claims, including her claims that commitment to CMHIP violates her federal due process rights. Even if the trial court will not consider any pro se motions filed by Ms. Asselin while she is deemed incompetent, Applicant may raise her constitutional issues through appointed counsel. The state court proceeding thus offers Ms. Asselin a forum to raise her constitutional challenges and the adjudication of this federal lawsuit would inescapably intrude on the potential for the state court to decide the same issues. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44; see also Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1987) (noting that Younger abstention "'offers the opportunity for narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests'" (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 429-30 (1979))). The fact that Ms. Asselin has not obtained the relief she seeks in the state court does not mean that she has not had, or does not have, an adequate opportunity to present her federal claims in the state court proceedings.

And, finally, the state has an important interest in the administration of its Criminal Code, see Penzoil, 481 U.S. at 12-13, as well as the state competency procedures set forth in §§ 16-8-101, et seq., C.R.S. Matters concerning the competency of...