Hill v. Townsend

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 HORACE HILL, JR.,

9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-05878-RSL-SKV

10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 JOSEPHINE C. TOWNSEND, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 Plaintiff Horace Hill Jr. is currently detained at the Clark County Jail in Vancouver, 15 Washington. See Dkt. 1 at 1. He has submitted to the Court for filing a prisoner civil rights 16 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed with this action in 17 forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Josephine 18 Townsend, his former attorney, violated the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct 19 (“RPCs”) and failed to provide adequate representation, resulting in his excessive confinement. 20 See Dkt. 1-1 at 4–6. Plaintiff further alleges that private investigator Michael Frank and police 21 officer Kenneth Hess, two individuals assigned to the case, made false statements leading to his 22 false arrest. Id. at 7. 23 1 Plaintiff identifies Josephine Townsend, Michael Frank, and Kenneth Hess as Defendants 2 in his complaint. Id. at 3. Plaintiff requests relief in the form of dismissal of the charges pending 3 against him, release from confinement, and damages. Id. at 9.

4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint to 5 determine if he has stated any cognizable claims for relief in his pleading.1 The Court, having 6 conducted the requisite screening, concludes that Plaintiff has not stated in his complaint any 7 claim upon which relief may be granted. 8 The Court first observes that defendant Josephine Townsend is not a proper defendant in 9 this action. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that neither private attorneys nor 10 public defenders are considered state actors for purposes of suing under § 1983. See Polk 11 County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (a public defender does not act under color of state law 12 when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal 13 proceeding). Thus, Ms. Townsend is not subject to suit in this § 1983 action.

14 As to Plaintiff’s claims against Michael Frank and Kenneth Hess regarding alleged false 15 statements leading to his false arrest, the Court observes that these claims pertain to Plaintiff’s 16 ongoing criminal proceedings and are not properly before this Court at the present time. 17 Generally, the federal courts will not intervene in a pending state court criminal proceeding 18 absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable harm is both great and 19 immediate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “[O]nly in the most unusual 20 circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas 21

22 1 Section 1915A(a) provides that “[T]he court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” Section 1915A(b)(1) redress from a provides that “On review, the Court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 23 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is . . . frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 1 corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in 2 the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). See also 3 Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980).

4 Under Younger, abstention from interference with pending state judicial proceedings is 5 appropriate when: “(1) there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding 6 ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state 7 proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or 8 has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. 9 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. 10 Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). Federal courts, however, do not invoke Younger 11 abstention if there is a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary 12 circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 13 Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982).

14 Here, Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee subject to an ongoing state criminal proceeding, and 15 such proceedings implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 16 (1986); Younger, 401 U.S. at 43–45. Plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that he could not 17 bring his claims in state court, and Plaintiff’s requested relief, which includes dismissal of the 18 pending charges, clearly seeks to enjoin the ongoing state court proceeding. In addition, 19 Plaintiff’s pleading does not reveal any extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 20 inappropriate. Thus, it appears that Younger abstention applies to Plaintiff’s claims, and that 21 Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 22 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 23 1 (1) Plaintiff shall show cause not later than thirty (30) days from the date on which 2 this Order is signed why the instant complaint and action should not be dismissed 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

4 may be granted. Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in a 5 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 6 (2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert 7 S. Lasnik. 8 DATED this 29th day of November, 2023.

10 A S. KATE VAUGHAN 11 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23