YOUNG v. REGISTER et al

1
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.
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 10

2
(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-
1 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
1 Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes
judicial notice of facts taken from state court’s online public docket. 	See
McDowell Bey v. Vega, 588 F. App’x 923, 926 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding no
error in taking judicial notice of state court docket entries). 	If Petitioner
disputes the accuracy of these facts or otherwise wishes to be heard on
the propriety of the Court’s taking judicial notice, then he may do so in
an objection to this Report and Recommendation. Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t
of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651-53 (11th Cir. 2020).
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 10

3
detention violates the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the Magna Carta,
The Great Charter, and the Eighth Amendment; and (6) the state court
appointed an attorney to represent him against his will. 	(Doc. 5 at 3-5;
Doc. 5-1 at 1-3). 	As relief, Petitioner seeks release from custody and an
order “quashing the lower courts’ orders.” (Doc. 5-1 at 4).
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
2 See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (requiring prompt
judicial review of a habeas petition and explaining that “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner”); see also Rule 1(b),
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (stating that a district court “may apply
any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition” that has not been
filed under § 2254); 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); McGowan v. Dir. of Miami-Dade Dep’t of Corr., No. 22-
13720, 2023 WL 7321634, at *1 (11th Cir. June 7, 2023) (single judge
order) (finding that “reasonable jurists would not debate the district
court’s dismissal” sua sponte of the habeas petition because “the district
court correctly determined that [the petitioner’s] claims were subject to
the Younger abstention doctrine”).
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 10

4
the show cause order. 	(Docs. 10, 11). 	In those responses, Petitioner
claims that Younger does not apply. (Id.).
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.);
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 10

5
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
3 Petitioner 	argues 	his 	commitment 	to 	the 	Florida 	Department 	of
Children and Families is a civil commitment, whereas Younger applies
to criminal prosecutions. 	(Doc. 10 at 10). 	That argument fails for two
reasons. First, Petitioner’s commitment was ordered in the course of his
pending state criminal proceedings. Second, Younger applies even in the
context of pending state civil commitment proceedings. 	Newsome v.
Broward Cnty. Pub. Defs., 304 F. App’x 814, 816 (11th Cir. 2008).
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 10

6
from raising his constitutional claims in the state courts”). 	Moreover,
Petitioner is represented by counsel in the state criminal proceedings.
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
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 10

7
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
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 10

8
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
4 “Dismissals pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine are without
prejudice.” 	Hale v. Pate, 694 F. App’x 682, 684 (11th Cir. 2017).
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 8 of 10

9
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 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
Case 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 9 of 10

10
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 5:25-cv-00300-AW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 10 of 10