Stawicki v. Wade

Opinion

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

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

NO: 1:22-CV-3189-RMP Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v.

ROGERS, DEREK HOLMES, HANSBERRY, JIM WEED, RYAN POTTER, RAY CEDENO and JENNIFER A. MARGEIM, Defendants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON Senior United States District Judge