1 2 3 FILED IN THE 4 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 Aug 28, 2025 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 BRANDON KAPP, No. 1:25-CV-03109-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 12 JENNIFER MCDANIEL, in her AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 individual and official capacities, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6. Defendant is 18 represented by Brian Baker. The motion was considered without oral argument. 19 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and now sua 20 sponte dismisses this matter without prejudice, pursuant to the Younger abstention 21 doctrine. The Court also denies leave to amend. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 24 Washington on July 11, 2025. The Court conducted a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) review 25 of the Complaint and dismissed with leave to amend on August 11, 2025. ECF No. 26 9. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) First 27 Amendment Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Denial of Access to Courts 28 under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) Declaratory 1 Judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. He notes in this amended complaint that 2 on July 2, 2025, he filed a parallel claim in Yakima County Superior Court to 3 compel Defendant’s compliance under Washington State’s Public Records Act, 4 Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56. In the state action, he seeks statutory remedies and a 5 compliance order. 6 In this action, Plaintiff alleges on multiple occasions between April and 7 August of 2025, he submitted public records requests under Wash. Rev. Code § 8 42.56 seeking internal emails, supervisor communications, and administrative 9 records relating to his employment at the Washington State Department of 10 Veterans Affairs, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accommodation, and 11 internal agency conflicts. He further alleges Defendant, in her capacity as a records 12 manager, responded to his requests with partial records and intentionally stripped 13 metadata, email headers, and dates from the records. He alleges she failed to 14 certify the completeness of the records requests and did not verify the disclosures, 15 resorting to making repetitive and frivolous demands for clarifications on word 16 requests. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had notice that the Washington State Attorney 17 General’s Office issued a litigation hold on Plaintiff’s ADA case but failed to 18 preserve evidence, resulting in spoliation. He alleges this constituted an act of 19 retaliation against him. 20 Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s pattern of obstruction began after he started 21 gathering evidence for his federal lawsuit, and the actions by Defendant were 22 intentional and retaliatory. Plaintiff argues, absent a ruling from the Court, he 23 cannot obtain relief for his legal claims. 24 He claims Defendant violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to 25 petition the government for redress, right to due process, and right to access public 26 information necessary for legal redress. He further seeks a declaration that 27 Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and 28 federal law. 1 II. YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE 2 Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts generally shall not 3 intervene in a matter when there is an ongoing, unresolved state proceeding. See 4 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The doctrine rests on the principals of 5 federalism, comity, and equity:
6 The notion of comity includes a proper respect for state functions, a 7 recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of 8 separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions 9 are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. 10 11 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 12 (1982). 13 The doctrine applies to both civil and criminal cases, particularly when 14 “important state interests are involved.” Id. at 432. Abstention is appropriate when 15 (1) there is ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceeding implicates 16 important state interests; (3) there is adequate opportunity in state proceedings to 17 raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the relief requested seeks to enjoin or has 18 the effect of enjoying the ongoing state judicial proceeding. See ReadyLink 19 Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). If 20 these factors are satisfied, federal courts shall not interfere with ongoing state 21 proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances including a threat of irreparable 22 injury both “great and immediate.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Circumstances may 23 also include acts of bad faith or harassment on the part of the state. See Middlesex, 24 457 U.S. at 437. 25 When a court determines Younger applies, it must dismiss without prejudice. 26 See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). Finally, a federal 27 court may raise Younger abstention sua sponte. See San Remo Hotel v. City & 28 Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 n.5 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff newly informs the Court he has 3 filed a parallel case in Yakima County Superior Court to compel Defendant’s 4 compliance under Washington State’s Public Records Act. Given the overlap, the 5 Court must consider the factors of the Younger abstention doctrine. See ReadyLink 6 Healthcare, 754 F.3d at 758. 7 First, there is an ongoing related state judicial proceeding in Yakima County 8 Superior Court. Id. Second, the proceeding involves the application of Washington 9 State’s Public Records Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56, an enforcement action 10 important to state interests. Id. Third, Plaintiff can raise his constitutional claims in 11 state court. Id. Fourth, Plaintiff’s requested relief would interfere with and have the 12 effect of enjoining the state judicial proceeding because the state must first decide 13 if Defendant and the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs violated the 14 Public Records Act, a question also at issue in this matter. Id. 15 Further, though Plaintiff alleges Defendant acted in bad faith when she 16 failed to provide records he requested, he does not allege facts of bad faith, 17 harassment, or other circumstances related to the state court proceedings. See 18 Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 437.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 FILED IN THE 4 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 Aug 28, 2025 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 BRANDON KAPP, No. 1:25-CV-03109-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 12 JENNIFER MCDANIEL, in her AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 individual and official capacities, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6. Defendant is 18 represented by Brian Baker. The motion was considered without oral argument. 19 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and now sua 20 sponte dismisses this matter without prejudice, pursuant to the Younger abstention 21 doctrine. The Court also denies leave to amend. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 24 Washington on July 11, 2025. The Court conducted a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) review 25 of the Complaint and dismissed with leave to amend on August 11, 2025. ECF No. 26 9. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) First 27 Amendment Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Denial of Access to Courts 28 under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) Declaratory 1 Judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. He notes in this amended complaint that 2 on July 2, 2025, he filed a parallel claim in Yakima County Superior Court to 3 compel Defendant’s compliance under Washington State’s Public Records Act, 4 Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56. In the state action, he seeks statutory remedies and a 5 compliance order. 6 In this action, Plaintiff alleges on multiple occasions between April and 7 August of 2025, he submitted public records requests under Wash. Rev. Code § 8 42.56 seeking internal emails, supervisor communications, and administrative 9 records relating to his employment at the Washington State Department of 10 Veterans Affairs, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accommodation, and 11 internal agency conflicts. He further alleges Defendant, in her capacity as a records 12 manager, responded to his requests with partial records and intentionally stripped 13 metadata, email headers, and dates from the records. He alleges she failed to 14 certify the completeness of the records requests and did not verify the disclosures, 15 resorting to making repetitive and frivolous demands for clarifications on word 16 requests. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had notice that the Washington State Attorney 17 General’s Office issued a litigation hold on Plaintiff’s ADA case but failed to 18 preserve evidence, resulting in spoliation. He alleges this constituted an act of 19 retaliation against him. 20 Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s pattern of obstruction began after he started 21 gathering evidence for his federal lawsuit, and the actions by Defendant were 22 intentional and retaliatory. Plaintiff argues, absent a ruling from the Court, he 23 cannot obtain relief for his legal claims. 24 He claims Defendant violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to 25 petition the government for redress, right to due process, and right to access public 26 information necessary for legal redress. He further seeks a declaration that 27 Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and 28 federal law. 1 II. YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE 2 Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts generally shall not 3 intervene in a matter when there is an ongoing, unresolved state proceeding. See 4 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The doctrine rests on the principals of 5 federalism, comity, and equity:
6 The notion of comity includes a proper respect for state functions, a 7 recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of 8 separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions 9 are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. 10 11 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 12 (1982). 13 The doctrine applies to both civil and criminal cases, particularly when 14 “important state interests are involved.” Id. at 432. Abstention is appropriate when 15 (1) there is ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceeding implicates 16 important state interests; (3) there is adequate opportunity in state proceedings to 17 raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the relief requested seeks to enjoin or has 18 the effect of enjoying the ongoing state judicial proceeding. See ReadyLink 19 Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). If 20 these factors are satisfied, federal courts shall not interfere with ongoing state 21 proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances including a threat of irreparable 22 injury both “great and immediate.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Circumstances may 23 also include acts of bad faith or harassment on the part of the state. See Middlesex, 24 457 U.S. at 437. 25 When a court determines Younger applies, it must dismiss without prejudice. 26 See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). Finally, a federal 27 court may raise Younger abstention sua sponte. See San Remo Hotel v. City & 28 Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 n.5 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff newly informs the Court he has 3 filed a parallel case in Yakima County Superior Court to compel Defendant’s 4 compliance under Washington State’s Public Records Act. Given the overlap, the 5 Court must consider the factors of the Younger abstention doctrine. See ReadyLink 6 Healthcare, 754 F.3d at 758. 7 First, there is an ongoing related state judicial proceeding in Yakima County 8 Superior Court. Id. Second, the proceeding involves the application of Washington 9 State’s Public Records Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56, an enforcement action 10 important to state interests. Id. Third, Plaintiff can raise his constitutional claims in 11 state court. Id. Fourth, Plaintiff’s requested relief would interfere with and have the 12 effect of enjoining the state judicial proceeding because the state must first decide 13 if Defendant and the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs violated the 14 Public Records Act, a question also at issue in this matter. Id. 15 Further, though Plaintiff alleges Defendant acted in bad faith when she 16 failed to provide records he requested, he does not allege facts of bad faith, 17 harassment, or other circumstances related to the state court proceedings. See 18 Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 437. 19 The Court finds the Younger factors satisfied; thus, the Court is required to 20 abstain and dismiss this matter without prejudice. See Beltran, 871 F.2d at 782. 21 IV. NO LEAVE TO AMEND 22 Unless it is absolutely clear that amendment would be futile, a pro se litigant 23 must be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to correct any deficiencies. 24 See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded by statute on 25 other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that a court 26 shall grant leave to amend freely “when justice so requires.” If deficiencies in a 27 pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a court must consider this in 28 deciding whether to grant leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court finds amendment futile because Younger abstention applies. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14, is DISMISSED, 5|| without leave to amend and without prejudice, pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. 2. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 8|| of this Order would not be taken in good faith. 9 3. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 11||this Order, provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff and counsel, and close the file. 12 DATED this 28th day of August 2025. 13
16 sin in 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT TRAwWTTN ARATAM □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ oe