Harris v. Kent Police Department Detective

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 DWIGHT HARRIS, CASE NO. C23-1510JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND 12 DISMISSING CASE KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 13 DETECTIVE, et al, 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s report and 16 recommendation, in which she recommends that the court (1) dismiss pro se Plaintiff 17 Dwight Harris’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint without prejudice and 18 (2) deny Mr. Harris’s motion to appoint counsel as moot. (R&R (Dkt. # 15); see Am. 19 Compl. (Dkt. # 9); Counsel Mot. (Dkt. # 12).) Mr. Harris filed timely objections. (Obj. 20 (Dkt. # 16).) Because the court has not yet issued summons, neither Defendant Chelsea 21 Pribble nor Defendant Clark County Police Department SWAT Team (together, 22 1 “Defendants”) has appeared in this matter. (See generally Dkt.) Having carefully 2 reviewed the foregoing documents, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing

3 law, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation; DISMISSES Mr. Harris’s civil 4 rights complaint without prejudice; and DENIES Mr. Harris’s motion to appoint counsel 5 as moot. 6 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 7 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court 8 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

9 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the 10 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 11 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 12 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Mr. Harris is proceeding pro se, the court must 13 interpret his complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339

14 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 Mr. Harris is a pre-trial detainee at the King County Correctional Facility, where 16 he is awaiting trial on charges relating to an alleged drive-by shooting. (See generally 17 Am. Compl.) He alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by subjecting 18 him to an unlawful search, seizure, and arrest and by depriving him of the opportunity to

19 confront his accusers. (See generally id.) He also asserts that Defendants violated his 20 Sixth Amendment rights, but he alleges no facts to support that claim. (See id. at 7.) 21 Magistrate Judge Peterson recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Harris’s 22 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, under which the court must screen complaints 1 filed by prisoners against government officials and “dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

3 upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 4 immune from such relief.” (R&R at 5-8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)).) Specifically, 5 she recommends that the court abstain from considering this case under Younger v. 6 Harris because Mr. Harris (1) is a pre-trial detainee whose state-court criminal 7 proceedings are ongoing; (2) raises claims that relate to those ongoing state-court 8 criminal proceedings; and (3) has not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances”

9 justifying an exception to Younger abstention. (Id. (first citing Younger, 401 U.S. 37, 10 43-44 (1971); and then quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)).) 11 In his objections, Mr. Harris asserts that the state courts are conspiring with the 12 police to deny him his constitutional rights. (Obj. at 2.) He argues that his rights under 13 the Speedy Trial Act have been violated and that certain evidence Defendants used to

14 support his criminal charge was unlawfully obtained and must be suppressed. (Id. at 15 2-3.) He also urges the court to find that extraordinary circumstances justify an exception 16 to Younger abstention because he has been subjected to solitary confinement in violation 17 of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 4-5.) 18 Having considered Mr. Harris’s objections and having reviewed the report and

19 recommendation de novo, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation. Younger 20 requires a district court to dismiss a federal action if state proceedings are (1) ongoing, 21 (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) afford the plaintiff an adequate opportunity 22 to raise the federal issue. See Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 1 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The court agrees with Magistrate Judge 2 Peterson that these criteria are satisfied here because Mr. Harris’s ongoing state-court

3 criminal proceedings implicate important state interests and there is nothing to indicate 4 that Mr. Harris cannot raise claims that he was subjected to an unlawful search and 5 seizure, deprived of an opportunity to confront his accusers, or suffered a Sixth 6 Amendment violation in his criminal case. (See R&R at 5-8.) Furthermore, the court 7 does not find that solitary confinement, without more, constitutes the type of 8 extraordinary circumstance that would justify an exception to the abstention doctrine.

9 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 10 1. The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 15) in full; 11 2. Mr. Harris’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 9), and this action, are 12 DISMISSED without prejudice; 13 3. Mr. Harris’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 12) is DENIED as moot;

14 and 15 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Mr. Harris and to 16 Magistrate Judge Peterson. 17 Dated this 5th day of March, 2024. 18 A 19 20 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 21 22