Wetmore-Tinney v. Hooper

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00037
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 08, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 RAYMOND WETMORE-TINNEY, No. 2:25-CV-00037-SAB 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 CHIEF HOOPER (Spokane County 13 Jail), JOHN DOE (Asotin County 14 Jail), and JOHN DOE (Washington 15 Dept of Corrections), 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Raymond Wetmore-Tinney, an individual formerly incarcerated at 19 the Asotin County Jail1, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 20 21

22 1 Mail sent to Petitioner at the Asotin County Jail was returned as undeliverable on 23 February 24, March 11, and March 18, 2025. ECF Nos. 6, 11 and 12. On March 5, 24 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s notice of change of address mailed from the 25 Washington Corrections Center on February 27, 2025, ECF No. 9, and documents 26 were re-generated electronically to Petitioner at that location on that date. 27 Petitioner was also advised of his obligation to comply with the E-Filing Program 28 by submitting all future documents to be filed with this Court to the law 1|| Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 29, 2025. ECF No. 1. On February 10, 2025, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee. Respondents 3|| have not been served. On March 3, 2025, the Court instructed Petitioner to show cause within 5|| thirty days why this case should not be dismissed as premature under Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41, 45 (1971). More than thirty (30) days have passed since documents were regenerated to Petitioner on March 5, 2025, and Petitioner has failed to present any facts demonstrating that he is entitled to federal intervention 9)| at this time. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule 4”). 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. This action is dismissed as premature under Habeas Rule 4. 13 2. The Court certifies that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 14 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 15 appealability is therefore DENIED. 16 3. Petitioner’s pending Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as 17 moot. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner and close the file. 20 DATED this 8th day of April 2025. 21 22 23 . Sock yl Sect 25 Stanley A. Bastian 26 Chief United States District Judge 27|| librarian/designee for electronic filing. ECF No. 10. Petitioner has filed nothing 28)| further in this action.