Pacheco v. Commonwealth of Masachusetts, 1:17-cv-10637

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Pacheco filed suit in federal court on April 19, 2017 seeking an injunction to halt ongoing state criminal proceedings in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Pacheco alleged violations of his Sixth Amendment rights (including the right to a speedy trial and self-representation) and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on agoraphobia impairing his ability to represent himself.
Remedies sought included an injunction to stop the state prosecutions (requested before April 26, 2017), dismissal of the state proceedings, transfer of the cases to federal court if not dismissed, and compensatory damages for mental anguish.
The court raised jurisdictional concerns sua sponte and considered abstention doctrines and removal jurisdiction issues.
The district court concluded Younger abstention applied and that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was unavailable, and dismissed the action without prejudice; defendants were not required to respond and the state Attorneys General were to be notified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court should hear challenge to ongoing state criminal prosecutions	Pacheco argued his federal rights (Sixth Amendment, ADA) are being violated and federal relief is required now	Implicit state interest in proceeding; federal court should not interfere with ongoing state prosecutions	Court applied Younger abstention and dismissed: federal court must not inject itself into active state criminal matters
Whether the criminal prosecutions are removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443	Pacheco sought removal or federal adjudication of his claims	The prosecutions do not fit § 1443 categories; Pacheco can litigate federal rights in state court	Court held § 1443 removal unavailable: plaintiff cannot show inevitable denial of federal rights nor prosecution for acting under color of federal equality laws

Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1998) (federal courts must examine jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
In re Justices of Superior Ct. Dep’t of Mass. Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2000) (discussing policy against federal interference with state judicial proceedings)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (establishing abstention doctrine to avoid federal interference in state prosecutions)
Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658 (1st Cir. 2010) (federal abstention required to avoid needless injection into state proceedings)
Brooks v. N.H. Supreme Ct., 80 F.3d 633 (1st Cir. 1996) (Younger-related principles on abstention)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (narrow construction of § 1443(1) removal; removal only in rare cases where state forum will inevitably deny federal rights)