Jerry Mackay Fairbanks v. Edgar Salazar, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-05027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 03, 2026 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 JERRY MACKAY FAIRBANKS, No. 4:26-CV-05027-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v.

10 EDGAR SALAZAR, et al.,

11 Defendants. 12 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 2, 2026. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also 13 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. A complaint filed 14 by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 15 subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that, among other 16 things, is frivolous and fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez 17 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 18 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San 19 Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff’s 20 Complaint is frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (noting 1 a complaint is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 2 irrational or the wholly incredible”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28

3 (1989) (noting a complaint is frivolous if its factual allegations are “clearly 4 baseless,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”). The Court further concludes Plaintiff’s 5 Complaint fails to state a claim. The date of occurrence of Plaintiff’s claim

6 appears to be December 4, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 7 over seven years later—on March 2, 2026. Thus, even if Plaintiff had raised a 8 non-frivolous claim, it would be untimely. See Boston v. Kitsap Cnty., 852 F.3d 9 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “[i]n Washington, the catch-all three-year

10 limitations period for any other injury to the person or rights of another’ contained 11 in R.C.W. 4.16.080(2) applies to § 1983 claims”) (simplified). 12 The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

13 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further denies leave to amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t 14 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses 15 a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it 16 is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint).

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

20 1 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is 2 DENIED as moot.

3 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 4 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any 5 arguable basis in law or fact.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 7 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 8 DATED March 3, 2026.

9 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20