ALEXIS CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON COUNTY

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01699
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ALEXIS CRAWFORD, Case No. 3:25-cv-01699-YY

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH v. PREJUDICE

WASHINGTON COUNTY,

Defendant.

Alexis Crawford, Portland, OR 97217. Pro Se.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

Plaintiff Alexis Crawford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action against Defendant Washington County for Judge Maalik Summer imposing a $25,000 bail on Plaintiff in April 2023. Complaint, ECF 2 ¶¶ 1–8. Plaintiff alleges that this bail was set “without individualized consideration” and was an “excessive bail that Plaintiff could not afford.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff brings two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first is an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the second is an excessive bail claim under the Eighth Amendment. Id. On September 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings & Recommendation (“F&R”), which recommended this Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice. F&R, ECF 4. Judge You concluded that the complaint was untimely and failed to state a claim for relief. Id. at 3. Plaintiff timely filed objections. This Court has reviewed de novo the portion of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge You’s F&R. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further

review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge You’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge You’s F&R, ECF 4, is adopted in full. Further, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, ECF 9, and finds that it fails to advance her claims or overcome any of the deficiencies identified in the initial complaint by Judge You’s F&R. Plaintiff has not set forth facts that would permit tolling of the statute of limitations under Oregon law or delay accrual of her claim. Plaintiff has not set forth facts demonstrating that Washington County or anyone could be sued for damages for Plaintiff’s allegedly excessive bail. Because the complaint is untimely and because Plaintiff’s proposed amendment fails to advance her claims any further, this Court finds that dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is appropriate. This Court therefore DISMISSES this action with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked because an appeal would not be taken in good

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Service of Process, ECF 13, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge