Pesina v. Skay

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 02, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 TROY ANTHONY PESINA, NO: 2:25-CV-0163-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 OFFICER R. SKAY, OFFICER RICHMOND, OFFICER VALDEZ, 11 JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, DEPUTY ZICKLER and SGT 12 JEREMY WILSON,

13 Defendants.

15 By Order filed July 25, 2025, the Court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies 16 of his complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) 17 days. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff, a pro se individual incarcerated at Spokane County 18 Detention Services is proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9. Defendants have 19 not been served. 20 1 In the Order to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, the Court found 2 that Plaintiff had failed to present facts supporting an inference that persons named

3 as Defendants to this action caused or personally participated in causing a 4 deprivation of Plaintiff's protected rights. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th 5 Cir. 1981); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). ECF No. 10 at 4,

6 11. Furthermore, the Court found abstention under Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 7 45 (1971), was appropriate while Plaintiff adjudicated his claims regarding his arrest 8 and incarceration in his pending state court criminal proceeding. Id. at 8–12. The 9 Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he did not amend or voluntarily dismiss as directed,

10 his complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 11 be granted. Id. at 13. 12 Although granted the opportunity to amend, Plaintiff did not do so and has

13 filed nothing further in this action. The Court must assume that he has chosen to 14 abandon this litigation. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order 15 to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, ECF No. 10, the complaint is 16 dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28

17 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). 18 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 19 1. The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

20 1 2. Based on the Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's 2 Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal, based in part 3 on Younger abstention, would NOT constitute a qualifying dismissal under 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 5 3. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED. 6 4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this 7 Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in 8 law or fact. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and Judgment accordingly, provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address and CLOSE the file. 11 DATED October 2, 2025.

13 ea ROMANO MICE Gras United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20