Padilla-Arredondo v. Donahue et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED, that the Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (docket no.[ ]2) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED, that defendant Kieran Donahue, Sheriff of Canyon County, be DISMISSED as a party defendant. It is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall randomly reassign this case to a Magistrate Judge. Kieran Donahue terminated. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SENOBIO PADILLA-ARREDONDO,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-CV-025-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

KIERAN DONAHUE, SHERIFF OF
CANYON COUNTY; CANYON COUNTY, in
their official capacities,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it plaintiff’s application to proceed without payment of fees.
For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the application.
ANALYSIS
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who seek in forma
pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint, or a portion thereof,
will be dismissed if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). To state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, plaintiff’s Complaint must include facts sufficient to show a plausible claim
for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

In this case, plaintiff complains that he was detained for about two months in the
Canyon County jail despite his frequent attempts to tender the full amount of the bond
ordered by the court to secure his release. He has named as defendants Canyon County,
and Kieran Donahue, the Canyon County Sheriff, in his official capacity only. The
complaint has three counts, two brought under § 1983 and the third brought under Idaho
law. The first two counts are for violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights to due
process and to be free of unreasonable seizure; his third claim is for false arrest and
imprisonment under Idaho law. On his first two claims, he seeks compensatory damages
while on his third claim he seeks “non-economic losses.”
The Court cannot find that this action is frivolous or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from liability. See Eason v. Clark County, 303 F.3d 1137,
1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to
counties). However, the action against Sheriff Donahue in his official capacity as
Canyon County Sheriff is essentially an action against Canyon County, rendering
duplicative the action against both him and the County. See Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S.
464, 471-72 (1985). Thus, dismissal of Sheriff Donahue is warranted, and the Court will
so order.
The plaintiff’s affidavit establishes his indigency and so the Court will waive the
filing fee.
ORDER

Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Application to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (docket no. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant Kieran Donahue, Sheriff of Canyon
County, be DISMISSED as a party defendant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk shall randomly reassign this case to a
Magistrate Judge.

DATED: February 7, 2018

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3