Guydos v. Hooper

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03135
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 29, 2025

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 JONATHON GUYDOS, No. 1:24-CV-03135-MKD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 JUDGE LAURA CANDACE HOOPER, KITTITAS COUNTY, 11 ELLENSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF 12 ELLENSBURG, ERICK QUEZADA, TIM WEED, TAYLOR MALSTROM, 13 STEPHANIE DRUKTENIS, ELLENSBURG POLICE OFFICERS 14 1-10, and ZACHARY WILLIAMS,

15 Defendants.

17 By Order filed November 26, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff, an 18 individual incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary, of the deficiencies of 19 his Complaint and granted him the opportunity to amend or voluntarily dismiss. 20 ECF No. 17. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF No. 16. 1 Defendants have not been served. 2 Specifically, the Court found certain Defendants were entitled to absolute

3 judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 4 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc); Imbler 5 v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Botello v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 976

6 (9th Cir. 2005); Schlegel v. Bebout, 841 F.2d 937, 943-44 (9th Cir. 1988). The 7 Court further declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s domestic relations 8 claims and noted that to the extent those domestic relations claims were 9 intertwined with state criminal proceedings, those claims were barred by Heck v.

10 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). See ECF No. 17 at 6-11. 11 Plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity to amend or voluntarily 12 dismiss and has filed nothing further. For the reasons set forth above and in the

13 Court’s prior Order, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED: 15 1. The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for

16 failure to state a claim upon which the Court may grant relief. 17 2. Because Plaintiff sought relief that sounds partially in habeas, and 18 based on this Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 19 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal will NOT count as a “strike”

20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1 3. The Court certifies that any appeal of this dismissal would not be 2 taken in good faith.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 4 enter judgment of dismissal, provide copies to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 5 DATED January 29, 2025.

6 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19