James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch

E.D. Washington

James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch

DecidedJanuary 14, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-03191

StatusUnknown

This text of James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch (James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON 3 Jan 14, 2026 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 JAMES LOUIS CRAWFORD, 1:25-cv-03191-SAB 11 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. 13 JEREMY WELCH, 14 Respondent. 15 16 By Order filed December 1, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner James Louis 17 Crawford, an individual incarcerated at the Yakima County Jail, to show cause 18 within thirty (30) days why his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be dismissed. 20 ECF No. 5. Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate 21 that he was entitled to habeas relief under Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 22 Petitioner did not show that his claims were exhausted or that he was 23 currently in custody under the convictions he challenged. ECF No. 5 at 2–3. 24 Further, his claims regarding an unlicensed prosecutor had been previously 25 litigated and dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v. Masters et al., No. 1:25-cv- 26 03083-SAB (E.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2025). See e.g. Hamilton v. Roehrich, 628 27 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1052, 2009 WL 1047080 (D. Minn. 2009) (“[w]hile a prosecutor 28 is obligated to seek justice, not only a conviction, a criminal defendant does not rely on a prosecutor to protect his rights” and, “[a]s a result, the fact that a prosecutor may be unlicensed to practice law has far fewer repercussions for the 3|| defendant than if his own counsel is not admitted.”); see also United States v. Garcia-Andrade, 2013 WL 4027859 at *10 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013). 5 Petitioner’s deadline to show cause was December 31, 2025. He has filed nothing further in this action. He appears to have abandoned this litigation. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 5, this habeas action is dismissed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 10 l. This action is dismissed under Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 11 2. The Court certifies there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 13|| appealability is therefore DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter 15|| judgment, provide copies to Petitioner and close the file. 16 DATED this 14th day of January 2026. 17

Shar Casta Stan Bastian Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADATD TIC. ITACTRIA AATIAAT LA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON 3 Jan 14, 2026 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 JAMES LOUIS CRAWFORD, 1:25-cv-03191-SAB 11 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. 13 JEREMY WELCH, 14 Respondent. 15 16 By Order filed December 1, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner James Louis 17 Crawford, an individual incarcerated at the Yakima County Jail, to show cause 18 within thirty (30) days why his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be dismissed. 20 ECF No. 5. Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate 21 that he was entitled to habeas relief under Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 22 Petitioner did not show that his claims were exhausted or that he was 23 currently in custody under the convictions he challenged. ECF No. 5 at 2–3. 24 Further, his claims regarding an unlicensed prosecutor had been previously 25 litigated and dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v. Masters et al., No. 1:25-cv- 26 03083-SAB (E.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2025). See e.g. Hamilton v. Roehrich, 628 27 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1052, 2009 WL 1047080 (D. Minn. 2009) (“[w]hile a prosecutor 28 is obligated to seek justice, not only a conviction, a criminal defendant does not rely on a prosecutor to protect his rights” and, “[a]s a result, the fact that a prosecutor may be unlicensed to practice law has far fewer repercussions for the 3|| defendant than if his own counsel is not admitted.”); see also United States v. Garcia-Andrade, 2013 WL 4027859 at *10 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013). 5 Petitioner’s deadline to show cause was December 31, 2025. He has filed nothing further in this action. He appears to have abandoned this litigation. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 5, this habeas action is dismissed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 10 l. This action is dismissed under Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 11 2. The Court certifies there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 13|| appealability is therefore DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter 15|| judgment, provide copies to Petitioner and close the file. 16 DATED this 14th day of January 2026. 17

Shar Casta Stan Bastian Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADATD TIC. ITACTRIA AATIAAT LA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James Louis Crawford v. Jeremy Welch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-louis-crawford-v-jeremy-welch-waed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack