Douglas James Young, Jr. v. Sheriff Tommy Ford, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION DOUGLAS JAMES YOUNG, JR., Petitioner, vs. Case No.: 5:25cv300/AW/ZCB SHERIFF TOMMY FORD, et al., Respondents. ___________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 5). The petition challenges Petitioner’s ongoing criminal proceedings in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Bay County, Florida. (Docs. 5, 5-1; Docs. 10, 11). For the reasons below, this case should be dismissed because abstention is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

I. Background Petitioner alleges he is being detained on criminal charges in three cases pending in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 25001484CFMA; State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 24003492CF; and State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 24006037MMA. (Doc. 5 at 2). According to Petitioner, the state trial court found him incompetent to proceed and committed him to the Florida Department of Children and Families for competency restoration. (Doc. 5 at 3-5; Doc. 5- at 1-2; Doc. 10 at 3). The state court dockets confirm the orders of incompetency and commitment. Young, Case No. 25001484CFMA; Young, Case No. 24003492CF.1 Petitioner’s § 2241 petition challenges the legality of his detention and the state criminal proceedings. (Doc. 5 at 3-5; Doc. 5-1 at 1-4). More specifically, Petitioner alleges (1) he is being detained without bond; (2) the “entity” named in the charging document and in the order of incompetency is “a strawman―a legal fiction or corporate persona created by the State”; (3) he was not afforded due process during the competency proceedings; (4) his speedy trial rights have been violated; (5) his

The Court initially reviewed the amended habeas petition and determined that it appeared Younger abstention applied.2 (Doc. 9). For that reason, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed. (Id.). Petitioner has now responded to

II. Discussion Under Younger abstention, “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. 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 are judicial proceedings against Petitioner pending in state court. See State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 25001484CFMA (Bay Cnty. Cir. Ct.); State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 24003492CF (Bay Cnty. Cir. Ct.); State of Florida v. Young, Case No. 24006037MMA (Bay Cnty. Cir. Ct.).3 Second, a state criminal prosecution 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, although Petitioner asserts he has been unable to vindicate his constitutional rights, he has not shown that he has been procedurally prevented from raising his federal claims in the state courts. In fact, he asserts that he has filed motions and petitions in state court, including a habeas petition, but relief has been denied. (Doc. 5-1 at 11). Thus, Petitioner has had a meaningful opportunity to present his constitutional claims in state court. See Pompey v. Broward Cnty., 95 F.3d 1543, 1551 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that “for abstention purposes, whether a claim would likely be successful on the merits in the state court is not what matters...[but rather] whether the plaintiff is procedurally prevented

There is no reason to believe that the Florida state court where the criminal actions are pending will not afford Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise the issues presented in his § 2241 petition.

Because the three requirements of Younger abstention are met, abstention is appropriate unless Petitioner shows that one of the exceptions above apply. 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 an exception to Younger abstention applies). None do.

Looking first to the bad faith exception, “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, despite Petitioner’s allegations of bad faith and maliciousness (Doc. 10 at 2, 6, 8-9, 11; Doc. 11), he has not shown that the state prosecution was brought with no “reasonable expectation” of securing a conviction. Thus, he has not satisfied Younger’s bad faith exception.

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 abstaining will result in Petitioner suffering irreparable injury.

Moving finally to the third exception, Petitioner has failed to show that the Florida state courts are an inadequate forum for him to raise his 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 him from raising in state court the same issues he has raised in his § 2241 petition. Indeed, Florida state courts regularly entertain and adjudicate such issues.

III. Conclusion Because the requirements for Younger abstention have been met and no exceptions apply, this Court should dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice.4 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 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented

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 he may present argument on the issue by bringing it to the district judge’s attention in his objections.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 amended habeas petition (Doc. 5) be DISMISSED without prejudice based on Younger abstention.

2. A certificate of appealability be DENIED.

At Pensacola, Florida this 2nd day of December 2025. /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.