Strong v. City of Spokane

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: July 9, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00085
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jul 09, 2021

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 IAN S. STRONG, NO: 2:21-CV-00085-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 v.

10 CITY OF SPOKANE,

11 Defendant.

12 13 By Order filed April 28, 2021, the Court advised Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee 14 at the Spokane County Detention Services, of the deficiencies of his complaint and 15 directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) days. ECF No. 8. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendant has not been 17 served. 18 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the directives 19 in the Order, the Court would dismiss his complaint seeking injunctive relief for an 20 alleged Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel violation. As of 21 the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response. 1 Specifically, Plaintiff failed to allege that the City of Spokane engaged in a 2 pattern or practice that resulted in the deprivation of his constitutional rights.

3 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 4 Furthermore, the Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts from enjoining 5 pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances not

6 presented here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45–46 (1971); see also 7 Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 8 (1982). 9 Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order and has filed nothing further

10 in this action. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior 11 Order, ECF No 8, IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

13 upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 14 1915A(b)(1), but without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing appropriate 15 state appellate and federal habeas relief. 16 2. Based on this Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles Cty.

17 Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal will NOT 18 count as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 19 3. This case is DISMISSED and CLOSED.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter 21 this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff and CLOSE the file. The 1 Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order 2 would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

3 DATED July 9, 2021. 4 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson 5 ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19

20 21