Stawicki v. Wade

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: March 22, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-03189
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 3 Mar 22, 2023

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 ANDREW STAWICKI, NO: 1:22-CV-3189-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v.

10 KEN WADE, TIM WEED, TREVOR ROGERS, DEREK HOLMES, 11 RYAN SHULL, DAN HANSBERRY, JIM WEED, RYAN 12 POTTER, RAY CEDENO and JENNIFER A. MARGEIM, 13 Defendants. 14

15 By Order filed January 9, 2023, the Court advised Plaintiff Andrew Stawicki, 16 a pretrial detainee at the Kittitas County Jail, of the deficiencies of his civil rights 17 complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) days. 18 ECF No. 10. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants have 19 not been served. 20 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the directives in 21 the Order, the Court would dismiss his complaint. As of the date of this Order, 1 Plaintiff has not filed any response. 2 Specifically, the Court advised that Plaintiff had failed to set forth facts 3 demonstrating how each Defendant, acting under color of state law, caused or 4 personally participated in causing a deprivation of Plaintiff's protected rights.

5 Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 6 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s assertions regarding a traffic stop made with “valid 7 cause,” because he had expired tabs, and which resulted in his vehicle being towed

8 and subsequently searched pursuant to a warrant, see ECF No. 1 at 9–10, did not 9 state a constitutional violation. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 10 (2015). 11 Furthermore, this Court was precluded by the Younger abstention doctrine

12 from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary 13 circumstances not presented here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45–46 14 (1971); Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992); Martinez v.

15 Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff did not amend his 16 complaint to state a plausible claim for relief. Therefore, the Court finds it 17 appropriate to dismiss this action. See World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v.

18 City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1987) (“When a case falls within the 19 proscription of Younger, a district court must dismiss the federal action.”); see 20 Kenneally, 967 F.2d at 331. 21 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 4 1915A(b)(1), but without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing appropriate

5 state appellate and federal habeas relief. 6 2. Based on this Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. 7 Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal will NOT

8 count as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 9 3. This case is DISMISSED and CLOSED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter 11 this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff and CLOSE the file. The

12 Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order 13 would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. 14 DATED March 22, 2023.

16 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 17 Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21