McDowell v. Landrus
This text of McDowell v. Landrus (McDowell v. Landrus) 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.
Opinion
1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Apr 16, 2020 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 ALAN RAY MCDOWELL, a.k.a. ALAN RAY JOHNSON, NO: 2:20-CV-18-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 9 v. 10 JOSHUA LANDRUS, CORY 11 FANTO, SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL, WASHINGTON STATE CAPITAL 12 CODE ADVISORY BOARD and NICHOLAS WIARDA, 13 Defendants. 14
15 BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Provide Pro Se 16 Rights at Geiger Corrections, ECF No. 7, six Motions for Discovery, ECF Nos. 12, 17 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, two Motions to Recall No Contact Orders in Spokane Superior 18 and Spokane District Courts, ECF Nos. 18 and 20, and a Motion for Preliminary 19 Injunction, ECF No. 19. Plaintiff, a prisoner at Spokane County Detention 20 Services, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; Defendants have not been 21 served. The Motions were considered without oral argument on the date signed 1 below. 2 By separate Order the Court has advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his
3 complaint asserting Washington’s competency evaluations violate due process and 4 directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss. To the extent Plaintiff asks this 5 Court to intervene in pending criminal matters in the State Courts, his requests will
6 be denied based on the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 7 37 (1971). 8 In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks “pro se rights and status at Geiger 9 Correctional facility.” ECF No. 7 at 1. It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting.
10 In his accompanying declaration, Plaintiff asserts that “he is not being 11 provided the same services such as public defender calls, visits, or police reports 12 that other inmates are provided.” ECF No. 8 at 1. He indicates that he has helped
13 other inmates obtain police reports, write kites at the jail, and prepare documents 14 for court. Id. at 4. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging the effectiveness of his 15 assigned counsel, he should raise that issue in his pending criminal proceedings 16 and in any appropriate petition seeking post-conviction review.
17 To the extent Plaintiff may be attempting to assert a Fourteenth Amendment 18 equal protection claim, he has failed to present any facts from which the Court 19 could infer that he is being treated differently than similarly situated persons. City
20 of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). In the 21 absence of any basis for relief, the Court will deny the Motion for Order to Provide 1 Pro Se Rights at Geiger Corrections, ECF No. 7. 2 DISCOVERY
3 The Court will not conduct discovery. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 4 through 37 govern the procedures for obtaining discovery material. Plaintiff 5 should pay particular attention to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
6 In the event Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient for service upon Defendant(s), 7 the parties will be directed to confer by telephone, as soon as practicable, and in 8 any event at least 21 days before the telephonic scheduling conference with the 9 Court (a notice will provide the date and time of such conference if service is
10 deemed appropriate), to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, 11 and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. In the 12 absence of settlement, the parties will be directed to propose a Discovery Plan and
13 arrange for the following disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): 14 (1) The name, address and telephone number (if known) of each individual likely to have information relevant to the claims and defenses 15 alleged;
16 (2) A description and location of all documents and tangible items relevant to the claims and defenses alleged; 17 (3) A computation of monetary damages claimed, including any 18 supporting documents for those damages.
19 Within 14 days after conferring by telephone, the attorneys of record and pro 20 se litigants will be directed to submit to the Court a written report summarizing the 21 disclosures under (1) through (3) and the proposed Discovery Plan. A PARTY 1 MAY NOT SEEK DISCOVERY FROM ANY SOURCE BEFORE THE 2 PARTIES HAVE CONFERRED AS OUTLINED ABOVE. Accordingly,
3 Plaintiff’s six Motions for Discovery, ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17, are 4 denied. 5 EXHIBITS
6 Plaintiff’s has submitted various documents and exhibits to the Court. 7 Exhibits should not be submitted with a complaint. Instead, the relevant 8 information contained in an exhibit should be paraphrased in the complaint. 9 Plaintiff should keep his exhibits to use to support or oppose a motion for summary
10 judgment or a motion to dismiss, or for use at trial. The Court has reviewed 11 Plaintiff’s submissions and does not find it necessary at this time to incorporate 12 them into his complaint as he requests.
13 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 Plaintiff seeks a “preliminary Federal injunction into Spokane Superior 15 Court cases.” ECF No. 19 at 1. He invites the Court to consider Rynearson v. 16 Ferguson, 355 F.Supp. 3d 964, 2019 WL 859226 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Plaintiff’s
17 complaint, however, concerns the constitutionality of competency examinations, 18 an issue not addressed in Rynearson. As stated above, the Court will not intervene 19 in pending state criminal proceedings under Younger abstention.
20 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 21 right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff 1 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 2 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
3 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 4 public interest.” Id. at 20. The motion is premature as the Court has not yet 5 determined that Plaintiff has filed a legally sufficient complaint. At this time,
6 Plaintiff is unable to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Thus, the 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 19, is denied. 8 MOTIONS TO RECALL NO CONTRACT ORDERS 9 Plaintiff appears to be asking this Court to intervene in state court
10 proceedings to “recall” no contact orders obtained by a particular party. ECF Nos. 11 18 at 1 & 20 at 1. Violations of these no contact orders appear to be the basis for 12 criminal charges currently pending against Plaintiff. He also claims these no
13 contact orders have denied him notice and access to public meetings he believes 14 are necessary for the furtherance of his business endeavors. ECF No. 20 at 1. If 15 Plaintiff wishes to challenge a no contact order issued by a state court, he should 16 do so in the appropriate state court proceeding.
17 Again, this Court will not intervene in pending state court criminal 18 proceedings based on Younger abstention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions to 19 Recall No Contact Orders in Spokane Superior and Spokane District Courts, ECF
20 Nos. 18 and 20, are denied. 21 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Provide Pro Se Rights at Geiger Corrections,
3 ECF No. 7, is DENIED. 4 2. Plaintiff’s Motions for Discovery, ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, are 5 DENIED.
6 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
McDowell v. Landrus, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-landrus-waed-2020.