Thomason v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00285
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 29, 2020

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 LANCE A. THOMASON, No. 2:19-cv-00285-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 COUNTY OF SPOKANE, SUPERIOR COURTS, COUNTY, CITY, PUBLIC 9 SAFETY BUILDING, and DETENTION SERVICES, 10 Defendants. 11

12 Before the Court, without oral argument, are Plaintiff’s First Amended 13 Complaint, ECF No. 9, his Declaration, ECF No. 10, and a Motion and Declaration 14 for Service of Summons by Publication, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se 15 and in forma pauperis. Defendants have not been served. 16 By Order filed October 23, 2019, the Court advised Plaintiff, a pretrial 17 detainee at the Spokane County Detention Services, of the deficiencies of his 18 complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty days. ECF 19 No. 8. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the directives 20 in the Order, the Court would dismiss his complaint seeking monetary damages for 1 alleged double jeopardy violations. Liberally construing the First Amended 2 Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that it fails to cure

3 the deficiencies of the initial complaint. 4 Specifically, Plaintiff fails to name as Defendants persons who are amenable 5 to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,

6 70–71 (1989); Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001); Greater Los 7 Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) 8 (concluding a suit against a superior court is a suit against a state, which is barred 9 by Eleventh Amendment immunity); cf. Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th

10 Cir. 1997) (describing superior court judges as state agents or employees); see also 11 Nolan v. Snohomish County, 802 P.2d 792, 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (“[I]n a legal 12 action involving a county, the county itself is the only legal entity capable of suing

13 and being sued.”). He also failed to allege facts from which the Court could 14 plausibly infer that the County of Spokane engaged in a pattern or practice that 15 resulted in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of 16 Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

17 Furthermore, the Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts from 18 enjoining pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances 19 not presented here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Kenneally v.

20 Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). For the reasons set forth above and in 1 Order to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss, ECF No. 8, this action is dismissed for

2 ||failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. 3 || $$ 1915A(b)C1) and 1915(e)(2). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff

6 pursuing available state court remedies.

7 2. The Motion and Declaration for Service of Summons by Publication, 8 ECF No. 11, is DENIED AS MOOT.

9 3. Based on the Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles County 10 Sheriff's Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal 11 will NOT count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 12 4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE 13 this file. 14 5. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any 15 appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

17 || provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address. 18 DATED this 29th day of January 2020. 19 Lo. Oa bascaanbe ALVADOR MENDP*- A, JR. 20 United States District slge

ADTALD TICRITOCIAIC ACTIART 9