Veniale v. Steiner

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 PALETI ANIKESI VENIALE, CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1623-JHC-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING 12 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING SAMUEL STEINER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff Paleti Anikesi Veniale filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 11, 16 2024. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Samuel Steiner, Aaron Rankin, and the Kent Police 17 Department violated his constitutional rights when arresting Plaintiff. See Dkt. 34. In relevant 18 part, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Steiner and Rankin used excessive force because they tazed and 19 shot Plaintiff while arresting him. Id. On July 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary 20 Judgment. Dkt. 54. In the Motion, Defendants state Plaintiff was charged with first degree 21 assault on Defendant Rankin “based on the conclusion that [Plaintiff] had clearly attempted to 22 23 24 1 stab, and presumably kill, [Defendant] Rankin.” Id. at 7 (quotations omitted); see also Dkt. 55 at 2 102-09.1 Based on the record before the Court, the charges are still pending. See Dkt. 54. 3 In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, (1971), the Supreme Court “espouse[d] a strong 4 federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.” H.C. v.

5 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden 6 State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)). “Abstention is required when: (i) the state 7 proceedings are ongoing; (ii) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (iii) the 8 state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.” Meredith v. 9 Oregon, 321 F.3d 807, 816 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Here, based on the record, Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing and 11 implicate important state interests. It also appears the Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s excessive 12 force claims in this case may interfere with the pending state judicial proceedings. Therefore, the 13 parties are directed to provide supplemental briefing on whether this matter should be stayed 14 while Plaintiff completes his state judicial proceedings.

15 The supplemental briefing shall conform to the following briefing schedule: 16 Defendants are directed to file a supplemental brief that does not exceed seven (7) pages 17 addressing the Younger issue on or before September 12, 2025; 18 Plaintiff is directed to file a response to Defendants’ supplemental brief that does not 19 exceed (7) pages that responds to only the issues raised in the supplemental brief on or before 20 October 10, 2025; 21 22 23 1 Plaintiff has also been charged with first degree murder for a crime he allegedly committed that led to his 24 apprehension. See Dkt. 54. 1 Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff’s response that does not exceed four (4) pages on 2 or before October 24, 2025. 3 The Clerk’s Office is directed to re-note the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 54) to 4 October 24, 2025.

5 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. 6 A 7 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24