Ellenwood v. Unfred

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00256
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON

Apr 15, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 JASON RAY ELLENWOOD, No. 2:24-CV-256-MKD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v.

10 LUKE UNFRED, ALLEN WILSON, and LT. STOCKWELL, 11 Defendants. 12

13 By Order filed February 20, 2025, the Court advised Plaintiff Jason Ray 14 Ellenwood, an individual currently housed at the Monroe Correctional Complex, 15 of the deficiencies of his Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and directed him to 16 amend or voluntarily dismiss his SAC within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 21. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants have not been 18 served. 19 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the directives 20 in the Order, the Court would dismiss his SAC seeking monetary damages and 1 injunctive relief for the alleged violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to 2 due process and allegations that he was falsely accused and deprived of his

3 property. ECF No. 21 at 10-13; see ECF No. 20 at 5-22. Plaintiff did not comply 4 with the Court’s Order and has filed nothing further in this action. 5 The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief

6 in his SAC. ECF No. 21 at 2, 6-10. Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff 7 failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against 8 Defendants related to evidence that was allegedly ignored and Plaintiff’s failure to 9 attend the infraction hearing. Id. at 8-9. The Court also determined that Plaintiff

10 failed to show that his continued placement in minimum custody constituted an 11 atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life. 12 Id. at 9; citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff

13 failed to state how false accusations violated his constitutionally protected rights, 14 and the Court noted that there is no basis in law for Plaintiff’s personal property 15 claim under Section 1983. ECF No. 21 at 7, 9-10.

16 For the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 21, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20, is 19 DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

20 granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2). 1 2. Based on the Court’s reading of Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 674- 2 75 (9th Cir. 2019), this dismissal will NOT count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §

3 1915(g). 4 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any 5 appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable

6 basis in law or fact. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 8 enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. The Clerk of 9 Court is further directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Office of the

10 Attorney General of Washington, Corrections Division. 11 DATED April 15, 2025. 12 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19