McCullough v. Logan et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DWIGHT JUNIOR MCCULLOUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE MICHELE LOGAN, et
al.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-000233-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 23, 2020, Dwight Junior McCullough, a self-represented
prisoner, filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a
Prisoner’s Application to Waive the Filing Fee.1
Mr. McCullough alleges that his constitutional and civil rights have been
violated by Detective Michele Logan, the Anchorage Police Department, and the
District Attorney’s Office of Anchorage, Alaska.2 In brief summary, Mr. McCullough
alleges that his recent arrest and the criminal charges brought against him lack
probable cause and ignore exculpatory evidence.3 	Mr. McCullough alleges that
his recent attempted purchase and subsequent repossession of a 2019 Dodge
1 Dockets 1-3.
2 Docket 1 at 1.
3 Id. at 3–8.
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 9
Durango from Lithia Kia are best resolved in a civil setting, not through the criminal
system.4 	The Court takes judicial notice of Mr. McCullough’s pending criminal
case in state court, State of Alaska v. McCullough, Case No. 3AN-20-03457CR.5
For 	relief, 	Mr. 	McCullough 	requests 	(1) 	$250,000.00 	in 	damages;
(2) $700,000.00 in punitive damages; and (3) an order that “defendants refrain
from coming near me.”6
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment
of the filing fee. In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.7
4 Id.
5 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact.” BLACK ’S L AW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in
another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
6 Docket 1 at 11.
7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 9
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts
consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted
as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”8 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.9 Before a court may dismiss any portion
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint
and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so
would be futile.10
DISCUSSION
Mr. 	McCullough 	alleges 	claims 	against 	Detective 	Michele 	Logan, 	the
Anchorage Police Department, and the District Attorney’s Office of Anchorage,
Alaska, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.11 	First, prosecutorial immunity bars
Mr. McCullough’s 	claims 	against 	the 	District 	Attorney’s 	Office. 	Second,
Mr. McCullough’s remaining claims are directly attacking the circumstances at
8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that
are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
9 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
10 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
11 See Docket 1.
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 3 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 9
issue in his current criminal case in state court. In the interest of comity, the Court
must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this matter. 	Accordingly, the Court
dismisses the action for lack of jurisdiction.
I. 	Prosecutorial Immunity
Mr. McCullough seeks to bring suit against the District Attorney’s Office of
Anchorage, Alaska. 	The Complaint alleges that “the prosecutor of the State of
Alaska overseeing the case has refused to look at the evidence negating me but
rather look at my history.”12 The Complaint alleges that Mr. McCullough has “been
incarcerated over 5 months and [hasn’t] been to court once over this charge, no
indictment, no speedy trial, no search warrant to go into my house, seize my car,
and no probable cause to arrest me.”13 	Further, the Complaint alleges that the
“State of Alaska is prosecuting what should have been a civil case, criminally” and
that the District Attorney’s Office “has allowed this to proceed for over 5 months”
without evidence or probable cause, and with “falsified documents to obtain a
warrant.”14 Mr. McCullough challenges the arrest warrant, prosecutorial decisions
regarding the sufficiency of evidence for an indictment, the general role of the
prosecuting entity, and any purported decisions that may have impacted his
12 Docket 1 at 7.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 7–8.
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 4 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 9
speedy trial rights.15 He also alleges malicious prosecution and abuse of process,
broadly and without detail.16
Similar to judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity protects government
attorneys when they are acting pursuant to their judicial role as an advocate for the
state performing functions “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process.”17 Mr. McCullough’s claims are deficient primarily because they
are rooted in the District Attorney’s prosecutorial duties and activities.
A prosecutor can be held accountable for malicious prosecution. But for any
such claim to go forward, a claimant must provide plausible factual details and
more than just conclusory allegations.18 	Most importantly, a claim for malicious
prosecution cannot proceed until the termination of the prior criminal proceeding
has occurred in favor of the accused.19 	This “avoids parallel litigation over the
issue of probable cause and guilt . . . and it precludes the possibility of the claimant
[sic] succeeding in the tort action after having been convicted in the underlying
15 Id. at 16; Docket 1-11.
16 Docket 1 at 7–8.
17 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (stating that pleadings which “are no more than conclusions, are
not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework
of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”).
19 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 47, 484 (1994).
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 5 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 9
criminal prosecution, in contravention of a strong judicial policy against the creation
of two conflicting resolutions arising out of the same or identical transaction.”20
Mr. McCullough’s criminal matter in Alaska Superior Court remains ongoing.
The general claims against the District Attorney’s Office are broad and stem from
core duties as a prosecuting entity for which it is immune from suit. 	Regarding
malicious prosecution, Mr. McCullough must conclude his criminal case, and it
must be resolved in his favor, before he can bring such a claim. In sum, all of the
claims against the District Attorney’s Office are deficient to a degree that they must
be dismissed without leave to amend, as amendment would be futile.
II. 	Abstention
In the two remaining claims, Mr. McCullough alleges harm caused by
Detective Logan and the Anchorage Police Department. 	The Complaint alleges
that Detective Logan ignored exculpatory evidence in seeking an arrest warrant of
Mr. McCullough.21 The Complaint also alleges “all actions between Lithia Kia and
I all fall under civil procedures for a civil case not criminal. 	The detective[‘]s
violation of due process is completely and utterly malicious and is clearly an abuse
of process and vindictiveness[s] as well.”22 	In regards to his claims against
20 Heck, 512 at 484.
21 Docket 1 at 3.
22 Id. at 4.
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 6 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 9
Anchorage Police Department, Mr. McCullough 	alleges that all the evidence
shows that:
no criminal representations took place nor any theft or
scheme to possess the 2019 Dodge Durango existed nor
transcribed. 	Malice 	and 	abuse 	of 	process 	may 	be
inferred due to lack of probable cause. 	A fraudulent
cashiers 	check 	received 	4-13-2020 	that 	was 	never
cashed but returned as fraudulent bears the burden of
protection under the contract sighed 4-10-2020 as it was
part of the deferred down payment.23
In summary of each remaining claim, Mr. McCullough contests the criminal
charges brought against him as investigated and charged by Detective Logan and
the Anchorage Police Department.
The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts may not
generally exercise jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with state judicial
proceedings.24 	The core of Younger abstention is that a federal court cannot
interfere with pending state court criminal proceedings, absent a “showing of bad
faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable
relief.”25
23 Id. at 5.
24 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
25 Id. at 54.
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 7 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 9
A federal court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met:
(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates an
important state interest; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal
constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would
enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere
with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.”26 	If the Younger
doctrine applies, the court must dismiss claims seeking equitable relief and stay
claims seeking damages pending completion of the state court proceedings.27
At issue, the State of Alaska indicted Mr. McCullough on multiple felonies,
including, Scheme to Defraud, a Class B Felony under AS 11.46.600(a)(2); Theft
with a Value of More Than $25,000, a Class B Felony under AS 11.46.120; and
Forgery 	of 	Legal 	Documents, 	a 	Class 	C 	Felony 	under 	AS 	11.46.505(a)(1).
Currently, 	the 	state 	criminal 	matter 	against 	Mr. 	McCullough 	is 	ongoing.
Additionally, the criminal indictment at issue also has triggered a Petition to Revoke
Probation/Parole in Mr. McCullough’s prior criminal conviction Case No. 3AN-17-
10150CR. The State of Alaska has an important interest in enforcing its laws and
the sentences imposed for criminal sanctions. Mr. McCullough has an opportunity
to raise and contest federal constitutional matters, including due process matters
26 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087,
1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
27 See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 8 of 9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-RRB, McCullough v. Logan, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 9 of 9
such as probable cause and his arrest warrant. Further, Mr. McCullough will have
the opportunity to test the sufficiency of the evidence against him and present any
theories regarding contracts and civil liability in front of the Alaska Superior Court.
Lastly, Mr. McCullough has requested injunctive relief in the form of an order
preventing the defendants from coming near him. 	But if this Court intervened, it
would, in practical effect, enjoin the state matter. Thus, the matter at present fulfills
all the requirements for Younger abstention. 	Therefore, the Court must abstain
from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss the action.
CONCLUSION
Claim 3 against the District Attorney’s Office must be dismissed, because
the defendant is immune from suit. 	The Court must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over Claims 1 and 2 in the interest of comity.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-00233-RRB Document 3 Filed 12/15/20 Page 9 of 9