BAXLEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLALAHEE DIVISION
TARA BAXLEY,
Petitioner,
vs. 	Case No.: 4:25cv460/MCR/ZCB
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a pro se amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. 	§ 2241. 	(Doc. 	31). 	The 	amended petition
challenges 	Petitioner’s 	ongoing 	state 	criminal 	proceedings 	in 	the
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Jackson County, Florida. 	(Id.).1 Petitioner
is 	currently 	confined 	in 	the 	Northeast 	Florida 	State 	Hospital 	in
Macclenny, Florida, for competency restoration. 	(Id.).2 	For the reasons
1 Petitioner references a “Jackson County case.” 	(Doc. 31 at 13). 	The
Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s pending state criminal case in
Jackson County Circuit Court, No. 2023-CF-000323 in which she is
charged with trafficking in methamphetamine.
2 According to the state court docket, on August 21, 2024, the state court
found Petitioner incompetent 	to 	proceed and 	committed her to 	the
Florida Department of Children and Families for competency restoration.
State of Florida v. Baxley, Case No. 2023-CF-000323, Order Adjudging
Defendant Incompetent to Proceed and Commitment to Department of
Children and Families (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 21, 2024).
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 8

2
below, this case should be dismissed because abstention is warranted
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
I. 	Background
Petitioner’s amended habeas petition claims that she is being held
in violation of her constitutional rights. 	(Doc. 31 at 7-17). 	According to
Petitioner, law enforcement sent a drug cartel leader to her home as a
confidential informant in February 2023 and then illegally surveilled her
home for four months. 	(Id. at 7-8, 10). 	Petitioner was arrested in June
2023 for an alleged drug transaction. 	(Id. at 9). 	She alleges her arrest
was not based on probable cause and instead based on her criminal
history and fabricated hearsay statements of the confidential informant.
(Id. at 10, 12, 14, 17). 	Petitioner alleges she was adjudicated mentally
incompetent by a judge without sufficient evidence or due process. 	(Id.
at 13, 16). 	She also alleges her legal counsel was ineffective. 	(Id.).
Although Petitioner does not precisely identify the relief she seeks, it is
apparent she wants this Court to intervene in the pending state court
prosecution.
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 8

3
II. 	Discussion
Dismissal 	of 	the 	habeas 	petition 	is 	warranted 	because 	of 	the
abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Under the 	Younger 	abstention doctrine, “a federal court should not
interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings where the state court
conviction and/or sentence is not yet final.” 	Johnson v. Fla., 32 F.4th
1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). 	Younger abstention is warranted when “(1)
state 	proceedings, 	judicial 	in 	nature, 	are 	pending; 	(2) 	the 	state
proceedings 	involve 	important 	state 	interests; 	and 	(3) 	the 	state
proceedings 	afford 	adequate 	opportunity 	to 	raise 	the 	constitutional
issue.” 	Id. at 1099. 	There are three “narrow exceptions” to Younger
abstention: “(1) there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad
faith, (2) irreparable injury would occur; or (3) there is no adequate
alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.”
Id.
Here, the requirements of Younger abstention are met. First, there
is an active criminal case against Petitioner pending in the Jackson
County Circuit Court. 	See State of Florida v. Baxley, Case No. 2023-CF-
000323 (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct.). 	Second, a state criminal prosecution
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 8

4
involves important state interests. See Boyd v. Georgia, 512 F. App’x 915,
918 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the state has an important interest
in prosecuting criminal offenses). 	Finally, there is no reason to believe
that the Florida state court where the criminal action is pending will not
afford Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise the issues presented
in her § 2241 petition.
Because the three requirements for Younger abstention are met,
abstention is appropriate unless Petitioner has shown that an exception
applies. See Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharm., 61 F.4th 902, 908, 912
(11th Cir. 2023) (recognizing that “the burden is on the plaintiff to show”
that a Younger exception applies).3 	None do.
Looking first to the bad faith exception, the Supreme Court has held
that “bad faith in this context generally means that a prosecution has
been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid
conviction.” 	Leonard, 61 F.4th at 911 (cleaned up). Here, Petitioner has
failed to show that the state prosecution was brought with no “reasonable
expectation” of securing a conviction. 	Petitioner’s allegation that her
3 	The 	Court 	notified 	Petitioner 	of 	Younger 	abstention 	in 	its 	order
directing her to file an amended § 2241 petition. 	(Doc. 27).
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 8

5
arrest and prosecution is based on false information does not satisfy
Younger’s 	bad 	faith 	exception. 	See 	Lorusso 	v. 	Florida, 	No.
1:25cv160/AW/ZCB, 2025 WL 1911485, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 13, 2025),
adopted by 2025 WL 1909484 (July 10, 2025) (finding that petitioner’s
allegations of insufficient evidence to support the prosecution did not
satisfy 	Younger’s bad faith exception); 	see also Davis v. Powell, No.
3:23cv6488/LAC/HTC, 2023 WL 4905495, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 13, 2023),
adopted 	by 	2023 	WL 	4912185 	(finding 	that 	petitioner’s 	allegations
regarding false statements by a detective in a probable cause affidavit
were insufficient to satisfy Younger’s bad faith exception).4
The 	Court 	will 	now 	turn 	to 	the 	second 	exception. 	To 	show
irreparable injury in the context of an ongoing state criminal prosecution,
Petitioner must demonstrate that “the danger of irreparable loss is both
great and immediate.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 45. Petitioner has not made
such a showing here. 	There is no reason for the Court to believe that
abstaining will result in Petitioner suffering irreparable injury.
4 See also Phillips v. Maddox, No. 1:21-CF-4455-WMR-CMS, 2021 WL
12224538, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2021), adopted by 2022 WL 22432867
(concluding that petitioner’s challenges to arrest warrant, including
whether it was supported by probable cause, did not satisfy an exception
to Younger).
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Moving finally to the third exception, Petitioner has failed to show
that 	the 	Florida 	state 	courts 	are 	an 	inadequate 	forum 	for 	her
constitutional challenges. 	“Adequacy in this context is not about the
quality of the state proceedings, but rather about whether the challenge
can be raised in the pending state proceedings at all.” Leonard, 61 F.4th
at 908 (cleaned up). 	Put another way, “what matters is whether the
plaintiff is procedurally prevented from raising his constitutional claims
in the state courts.” 	Id. (cleaned up). 	Petitioner has pointed to nothing
in Florida state law or procedure that would prohibit her from raising in
state court the same issues she has raised in her § 2241 petition.
For these reasons, abstention under Younger serves as a basis for
dismissal of this case. 	See Jackson v. Georgia, 273 F. App’x 812, 813-14
(11th Cir. 2008) (affirming sua sponte dismissal on Younger abstention
grounds in a case that attempted to challenge an ongoing state criminal
prosecution).
III. 	Conclusion
Because the amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
subject to Younger abstention, it should be dismissed without prejudice.5
5 See Hale v. Pate, 694 F. App’x 682, 684 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining that
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 8

7
IV. 	Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability is required for a pretrial detainee to
appeal the dismissal of a federal habeas corpus petition. 	Hiteshaw v.
Butterfield, 262 F. App’x 162, 163 (11th Cir. 2008). 	“Section 2253(c)
permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner has made a
‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” 	Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting § 2253(c)(2)). 	“At the COA
stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that jurists
of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [her]
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 	Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (cleaned up).
Here, Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing. Therefore, the
undersigned recommends that the final order in this case deny Petitioner
a 	certificate 	of 	appealability. 	If 	Petitioner 	objects 	to 	this
recommendation, 	then 	she 	may 	present 	argument 	on 	the 	issue 	by
bringing it to the district judge’s attention in her objections.
a petition subject to Younger abstention is properly dismissed without
prejudice).
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	The amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 	(Doc.
31) be DISMISSED without prejudice based on Younger abstention.
2. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot.
3. 	A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
At Pensacola, Florida this 6th day of February 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties.
A 	party 	who 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:25-cv-00460-MCR-ZCB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 8