Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Froeman v. Warden, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Glenn Froeman's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for injunctive relief. The appeals court found that the district court properly denied injunctive relief because federal courts may not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances involving federally protected rights. At the time the district court ruled, Froeman was still seeking relief in state appellate courts. The appeals court also found no extraordinary circumstances in Froeman's case that would warrant injunctive relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7050

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Glenn Froeman's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for injunctive relief. The appeals court found that the district court properly denied injunctive relief because federal courts may not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances involving federally protected rights. At the time the district court ruled, Froeman was still seeking relief in state appellate courts. The appeals court also found no extraordinary circumstances in Froeman's case that would warrant injunctive relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    Froeman v. Warden, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Glenn Froeman's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion for injunctive relief. The appeals court found that the district court properly denied injunctive relief because federal courts may not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances involving federally protected rights. At the time the district court ruled, Froeman was still seeking relief in state appellate courts. The appeals court also found no extraordinary circumstances in Froeman's case that would warrant injunctive relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7050

    GLENN A. FROEMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, Baltimore County Detention Center,
    Towson; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; LILA NOBEL,
    Division of Parole and Probation; W. ROLAND
    KNAPP, Director,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96559-L)
    Submitted:

    August 13, 1996

    Decided:

    August 30, 1996

    Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Glenn A. Froeman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Froeman appeals from the district court's marginal order denying his motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss.
    The district court properly denied injunctive relief. Federal
    courts may not award declaratory or injunctive relief that would
    affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
    circumstances involving federally protected rights. Younger v.
    Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). The record shows that Froeman was
    still seeking relief in the state appellate courts when the district court denied his motions for injunctive relief. See Huffman
    v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975). Furthermore, there are
    no extenuating circumstances in this case entitling Froeman to
    injunctive relief.
    We deny a certificate of appealability and dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like