Thomason v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Jan 31, 2020

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 LANCE A. THOMASON, No. 2:19-cv-00265-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DISMISSING v. COMPLAINT 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 COUNTY OF SPOKANE and SUPERIOR COURTS, 9 Defendants. 10

11 By Order filed October 23, 2019, the Court advised Plaintiff, a pretrial 12 detainee at the Spokane County Detention Services, of the deficiencies of his 13 complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty days. ECF 14 No. 10. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants have not 15 been served. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the 16 directives in the order, the Court would dismiss his complaint seeking monetary 17 damages for alleged double jeopardy and speedy trial violations. As of the date of 18 this Order, Defendant has not filed any response. 19 20 1 Specifically, Plaintiff failed to name as Defendants persons who are 2 amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police,

3 491 U.S. 58, 70–71 (1989); Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001); 4 Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th 5 Cir. 1987) (concluding a suit against a superior court is a suit against a state, which

6 is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity); cf. Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 7 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing superior court judges as state agents or employees). 8 He also failed to allege the County of Spokane engaged in a pattern or practice that 9 resulted in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of

10 Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 11 Furthermore, the Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts from 12 enjoining pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances

13 not presented here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971); Kenneally v. 14 Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff did not comply with the 15 Court’s Order and has filed nothing further in this action. 16 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend or

17 Voluntarily Dismiss, ECF No. 10, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure 18 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) 19 and 1915(e)(2).

20 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT 3 PREJUDICE to Plaintiff pursuing available state court remedies. 4 2. Based on the Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles County 5 Sheriff's Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal

6 will NOT count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE 8 this file.

9 4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any 10 appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

12 || provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address. 13 DATED this 31st day of January 2020. 14 Aon ae basen <4LVADOR MENSA, JR. 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20