Stalick v. Angle et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KATHARINE MARIE STALICK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 26-CV-29-D
)
ALFALFA COUNTY DISTRICT 	)
JUDGE LOREN ELIC ANGLE, 	)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT 	)
ATTORNEY’S BRIAN EDWIN 	)
MITCHELL, AND JEREMY 	)
TODD BAYS, CLERK TAMMI 	)
WAGGONER MILLER, 	)
AND SHERIFF GARY 	)
JOWAYNNE MAST, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
On January 7 and 8, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 1) and Declaration (Doc.No. 1-1) to various
email boxes associated with the Western District of Oklahoma. The undersigned
directed the Clerk of Court to accept the documents for filing.1 Upon consideration
of the motion, the Court orders as follows.
1 In the Declaration Regarding Medical Limitations and Access (Doc. No. 1-1), Plaintiff represents that “[t]imely
physical filing and in-person appearances pose a serious risk” to her health. Id. at p. 1. The rules of the Court do not
permit the filing of documents via e-mail; Ms. Stalick was previously advised by the Clerk of Court that she could
mail her filings to the Court. Although there is no Complaint provided to the Court as an initiating document, to avoid
the continued deluge of emails to various court email boxes, the motion was accepted for filing and resolution.
Case 5:26-cv-00029-D Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
In the motion Plaintiff asserts she is subject to an active failure-to-appear
bench warrant and bond forfeiture issued by the District Court of Alfalfa County. 2
She alleges she “has never been properly served, denied filings, has never been
arraigned, and appeared specially in state court solely to contest jurisdiction and
preserve rights.” (Doc.No. 1, p. 1). She further asserts that she requested reasonable
accommodations in the state court proceedings, that no interactive process occurred,
and that despite notice of her access limitations and the jurisdictional defects in the
case, the state court nevertheless proceeded. Id. at p. 2. She requests that this Court
temporarily restrain enforcement of the bench warrant and bond forfeiture orders
from Alfalfa County and prohibit her arrest or detention.
Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 301 U.S. 37 (1971), “a federal court must
abstain from deciding a case otherwise within the scope of its jurisdiction in ‘certain
instances in which the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings
counsels against federal relief.’” Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mtn., LLC, 953
F.3d 660, 669-70 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571
U.S. 	69, 	72 	(2013)). The 	application 	of 	Younger 	is 	jurisdictional 	and 	non-
2 The Court takes judicial notice of the State of Oklahoma v. Stalick, CM-2025-17, pending in the District Court of
Alfalfa County before the Honorable Loren E. Angle. Plaintiff is charged with assault and battery. The docket in that
case indicates that Ms. Stalick appeared in court on July 30, 2025, August 27, 2025, October 1, 2025, and November
6, 2025. She failed to appear on December 3, 2025. On January 7, 2026, she again failed to appear and a bench
warrant was issued.
Case 5:26-cv-00029-D Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
discretionary; the issue may be raised sua sponte. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. C.R.
Gurule, Inc., 148 F.Supp. 3d 1206, 1216 (D.N.M. 2015).
Younger’s application is limited to three categories of cases, including
criminal prosecutions. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New
Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989). If a state court proceeding falls into one of these
three categories, the Court may analyze the propriety of abstention. Bivings v.
Paprzycki, 2025 WL 3687800, * 2 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025). In doing so the Court
considers three conditions, “whether there is (1) an ongoing state judicial . . .
proceeding, (2) the presence of an important state interest, and (3) an adequate
opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.” Id. (quoting Travelers
Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. A-Quality Auto Sales, Inc., 98 F.4th 1307, 1317 (10th Cir.
2024)(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here there is an ongoing state prosecution, as noted above. Furthermore, the
Supreme Court “has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their
criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful
of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of
relief.” 	Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). Finally, Plaintiff has the
opportunity to raise the issue of her disability and the need for accommodations in
her criminal prosecution. She indicates she has raised the issues and that the state
Case 5:26-cv-00029-D Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
court has not agreed to honor her requests.3 “Younger requires only the availability
of an adequate state-court forum, not a favorable result in the state forum.” Winn v.
Cook, 945 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2019).
For these reasons, the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction and
Plaintiff’s request for Emergency Temporary Relief is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of January 2026.
3 The docket entry for November 6, 2025, in Case No. CM-2025-00017 indicates that Ms. Stalick’s request to file
pleadings by email was denied.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00029-D Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4