Thomason v. State of Washington County of Spokane Superior Courts

Opinion

1 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Jan 27, 2020 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 LANCE A. THOMASON, No. 2:19-cv-00257-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 COUNTY OF SPOKANE and SUPERIOR COURTS, 9 Defendants. 10

11 By Order filed October 4, 2019, the Court advised Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee 12 at the Spokane County Detention Services, of the deficiencies of his Complaint and 13 directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty days. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff 14 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants have not been served. The 15 Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the directives in the order, 16 the Court would dismiss his complaint seeking monetary damages for alleged 17 double jeopardy and speedy trial violations. 18 Specifically, Plaintiff failed to name as Defendants persons who are 19 amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 20 491 U.S. 58, 70–71 (1989); Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001); 1 Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th 2 Cir. 1987) (concluding a suit against a superior court is a suit against a state, which

3 is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity); cf. Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 4 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing superior court judges as state agents or employees). 5 He also failed to allege the County of Spokane engaged in a pattern or practice that

6 resulted in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t 7 of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 8 Furthermore, the Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts from 9 enjoining pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances

10 not presented here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971); Kenneally v. 11 Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff did not comply with the 12 Court’s Order and has filed nothing further in this action.

13 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend or 14 Voluntarily Dismiss, ECF No. 7, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a 15 claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 16 1915(e)(2).

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT 19 PREJUDICE to Plaintiff pursuing available state court remedies.

20 2. Based on the Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles County 1 Sheriff's Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal

2 will NOT count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE 4 this file.

5 4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal 6 of this Order could not be taken in good faith.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 8 || provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address.

9 DATED this 27" day of January 2020. 10 sonia ‘SALVADOR MENIT7A, JR. 11 United States District Jadge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20