Ingmire-Lopez v. Whatcom County Jail

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00305
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 DARRELL LEE INGMIRE-LOPEZ, CASE NO. C24-0305-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on objections (Dkt. No. 24) to the Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, U.S. Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 17 23). Judge Vaughan recommends the Court dismiss Darrell Lee Ingmire-Lopez’s habeas petition, 18 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See id. at 5.) Mr. Ingmire-Lopez objects. (See Dkt. No. 19 24.) Having thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court OVERRULES the objections, 20 ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES the petition with prejudice. 21 According to the R&R, Mr. Ingmire-Lopez has made a series of unintelligible 22 submissions. (See Dkt. No. 23 at 1–2). Judge Vaughan ordered Mr. Ingmire-Lopez to file a 23 proper pleading and clarify the type of action he intended to pursue. (See id. at 2) (citing Dkt. 24 Nos. 8-1, 8-2) (pleading template forms). He did not do so. The resulting submission (Dkt. No. 25 21) suffers the same deficiencies as previously identified. On this basis, Judge Vaughan 26 recommends that the petition be dismissed for failure to present a viable pleading. (See Dkt. No. 1 23 at 5). 2 In lodging an objection, Mr. Ingmire-Lopez does not meaningfully address possible error 3 with Judge Vaughan’s findings or recommendation. (See generally Dkt. No. 24.) Instead, he 4 lodges non-responsive arguments about the merits of his claims that do not improve the form in 5 which they are filed nor clarify the action itself. (Id.) This is insufficient to trigger de novo 6 review of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 72(b)(2) (a party properly objects by filing “specific written objections”); Simpson v. Lear 8 Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing the requirements for an 9 effective objection). Accordingly, this Court need not consider Mr. Fuller’s objections and, by 10 extension, the petition. 11 The Court, therefore, OVERRULES Mr. Ingmire-Lopez’s objections (Dkt. No. 24), 12 ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 23), DISMISSES the § 2254 petition, STRIKES as moot the 13 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) and the request to dismiss this 14 action (Dkt. No. 22), and, finally, DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. 15 Ingmire-Lopez and Judge Vaughan. 16 17 DATED this 27th day August 2024. A 18 19 20 John C. Coughenour 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26