Ramirez v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00266
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3

5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 16 17 MANUEL RAMIREZ, 18 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00266-RAJ Plaintiff, 19 ORDER 20 v. 21 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 22 23 Defendants. 24 THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions to Vacate Judgment filed by 25 pro se prisoner plaintiff Manuel Ramirez (“plaintiff”). Dkt. ## 18, 19, 21. In March 2023, 26 plaintiff, then a pre-trial detainee confined at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, 27 1 Washington, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against the state. Dkt. # 6. At the 2 time, plaintiff had been awaiting trial on protection order violations since August 2022.1 3 The King County Superior Court docket reflects that judgment was entered against 4 plaintiff on May 5, 2023. State v. Ramirez, No. 22-1-04709-3 KNT and No. 22-1-04835- 5 9 KNT (King Cnty. Sup. Ct., filed July 7, 2022 and Aug. 23, 2022, respectively), docket 6 available at https://dja-prd-ecexap1.kingcounty.gov (last accessed Sept. 13, 2024). In the 7 instant case, plaintiff alleged (1) violation of his speedy trial rights, (2) double jeopardy, 8 and (3) malicious prosecution. Dkt. # 6, pp. 4-5. He asked this Court to enjoin the state 9 court in the underlying criminal proceedings and for reimbursement for future court costs. 10 Id. 11 On May 2, 2023, the Court entered an order adopting the Report and 12 Recommendation of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan and dismissed the matter without 13 prejudice. Dkt. # 14. Because plaintiff had pending state criminal proceedings, this Court 14 found that abstention was warranted, as these proceedings met the requisite criteria for 15 abstention prescribed by the Supreme Court and further elucidated by the Ninth Circuit. 16 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Buckwalter v. Nev. Board of Med. 17 Exam’rs, 678 F.3d 737, 747 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Younger abstention requires federal courts 18 to abstain from hearing claims for equitable relief as long as the state proceedings are 19 ongoing, implicate important state interests, and provide an adequate opportunity to raise 20 federal questions.”) (internal citations omitted). 21 Further, plaintiff made no allegations of “bad faith, harassment, or some other 22 extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex Cnty. 23

24 1 As did the magistrate judge when issuing her Report and Recommendation, this Court 25 takes judicial notice of the King County Superior Court docket for cause numbers 22-1- 26 04709-3 KNT and 22-1-04835-9 KNT. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of 27 matters of public record”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) 1 Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). The court entered 2 judgment against plaintiff on May 2, 2023. Dkt. # 15. 3 Plaintiff’s most recent motions, while framed as a motion to vacate the previous 4 judgment, motion to seal, and motion to expunge his record, instead state that he is subject 5 to new state criminal charges for which he entered into a plea deal. Dkt. # 18, p. 1.2 He 6 asks this Court to “get this case [ready] for trial” and “vacate the last judgment.” Id. His 7 subsequent motions request that the Court expunge his state court record. Dkt. ## 19, 21. 8 Here, plaintiff provides no basis to vacate the Court’s prior judgment. Moreover, plaintiff 9 fails to offer any grounds for expungement by the Court. “There are two sources of 10 authority by which [federal] courts may expunge records of criminal conviction: statutory 11 authority and inherent authority. By statute, Congress has set the conditions by which the 12 courts may expunge records of federal convictions in particular cases.” United States v. 13 Le, No. CR06-0319JLR, 2022 WL 1061926, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2022) (citing 14 United States v. Crowell, 374 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks 15 omitted). 16 The Court is unaware of, and plaintiff fails to point to, any statutory authority 17 providing for expungement of his King County Superior Court record by this Court. 18 Additionally, this Court lacks the inherent authority to expunge his record. See United 19 States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (“district courts possess ancillary 20 jurisdiction to expunge criminal records. That jurisdiction flows out of the congressional 21 grant of jurisdiction to hear cases involving offenses against the United States pursuant to 22 23

24 2 Plaintiff is likely referencing cause number 24-1-04031-1 KNT, which was filed on 25 March 29, 2024, in King County Superior Court. State v. Ramirez, No. 24-1-04031-1 KNT 26 (King Cnty. Sup. Ct., filed Mar. 29, 2024), docket available at https://dja-prd- ecexap1.kingcounty.gov (last accessed Sept. 16, 2024). In that matter, plaintiff pleaded 27 guilty to protective order violations on July 24, 2024. Id. 1 18 U.S.C. § 3231.”) (emphasis added). The United States is not a party to any action 2 involving plaintiff. 3 4 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to vacate judgment are DENIED. Dkt. ## 18, 19, 5 21. 6 7 Dated this 18th day of September, 2024. 8 A

9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27