Johnson v. Santos

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 INGRID JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00911-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ERICA KNAUF SANTOS; JOANNA ANTIRIM; REGINE TUGUBLIMAS; KING 12 COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATION, 13

14 Defendants. 15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ingrid Johnson’s Emergency Motion to 16 Expedite Judicial Action and Notice of Due Process Violation. Dkt. # 9 (mislabeled on the 17 docket as “Emergency Second Amended Complaint”). For the reasons below, the Court 18 DENIES the motion. 19 The Court previously dismissed Johnson’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and granted her leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. # 7. The Court 21 explained that under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts must not interfere 22 with pending state court cases that implicate “important state interests.” Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. 23 Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 237–38 (1984). And because Johnson did not, among other things, 24 1 specify what state court proceedings she takes issue with, the Court stated that it “cannot assess 2 whether they implicate important state interests or provide her with an adequate opportunity to 3 litigate federal claims.” Dkt. # 7 at 3–4.

4 Rather than correct these deficiencies, Johnson’s present motion begins with details about 5 her child’s medical conditions and a statement that her child “was illegally evicted, stripped of 6 all personal belongings, and cut off from his sole safe parent.” Dkt. # 9 at 1. Assuming the 7 veracity of the representations, the Court has sympathy with respect to Johnson’s concern for her 8 child but cannot proceed with adjudicating her claims without an amended complaint. Because 9 her motion at Dkt. # 9, despite being labeled as a “Second Amended Complaint,” is in fact a 10 motion for a temporary restraining order, Johnson may still file an amended complaint within the 11 deadline set forth at Dkt. # 7. 12 Johnson’s motion also raises new claims about the Court’s delay in acting on her

13 motions. She says: 14 Since [insert date], Plaintiff has submitted: 15 • A Motion for TRO and Injunction • A Motion for Custody Relief based on default judgment 16 • A Motion to Disqualify an opposing attorney under active civil investigation for criminal misconduct 17 • Declarations, exhibits, and proof of service

18 Dkt. # 9 at 1–2. She asserts that the Court has failed to (1) acknowledge receipt; (2) set hearings; 19 (3) issue orders; and (4) provide any explanation for delay as to these motions. Id. at 2. But the 20 Court has denied her first motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, Dkt. # 7, and no 21 22 23 24 1 other motion remains pending on the docket. The motions Johnson attaches to her present 2 motion are all labeled for state court, not this Court.1 See e.g., Dkt. # 9-3 at 5, 22. 3 Finally, Johnson’s motion says that Defendant Erica Knauf Santos has allegedly 4 committed, among other things, “Felony Obstruction of Justice,” and “Pattern of Racketeering 5 Activity (RICO).” Dkt. # 9 at 3. But as the Court explained in its prior order, Johnson’s initial 6 complaint did “not allege any claims against Santos.” Dkt. # 7 at 2; Pac. Radiation Oncology, 7 LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive 8 relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 9 injunction.”). 10 Dated this 21st day of May, 2025. 11 12 a John H. Chun 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 Johnson also makes four demands for ‘immediate action.” Dkt. # 9 at 2–3. To the extent that these demands are not moot for the reasons discussed above, the Court denies these requests because 24 Johnson does not cite any authority to support them.