Rothwell v. Superior Courts of Washington et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (PL, Case Administrator)

1
2
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Dec 27, 2016

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6

LAWRENCE JOHN ROTHWELL,
NO: 2:16-CV-00285-SMJ

7
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

8
v.
9
10
11

SUPERIOR COURT OF
WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF
SPOKANE, and STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
Defendants.

12
13

BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No.
14
11, and a Statement of Claim, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the
15
Spokane County Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; Defendants have
16
not been served.
17
By Order filed September 14, 2016, the Court advised Plaintiff of the
18
deficiencies of his initial complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily
19
dismiss. After liberally construing Plaintiff’s submissions in the light most
20

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT--1

1

favorable to him, the Court finds that he has failed to cure the deficiencies in the

2

initial complaint.

3

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, as well as the dismissal of current

4
5

criminal charges for failure to register. He appears to allege his prior incarceration

6

was illegal because, he “was convicted and sentenced before the crime they say

7

[he] committed.” ECF No.11 at 5. In essence, Plaintiff is complaining that his

8

felony judgment and sentence filed on February 22, 2013, was dated February 22,

9

2012.

10

Plaintiff asserts that, because he was not permitted to take anything with him

11

to prison, he did not receive a copy of this judgment and sentence until March

12

2016, when the Department of Corrections apparently “served violations.” At

13

worst, Plaintiff has alleged a clerical error in the dating of a prior judgment and

14

sentence. This alone does not render his prior incarceration invalid. Plaintiff’s

15

allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim upon which relief may be

16

granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

17

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

18

For the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior order, IT IS

19

ORDERED this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking

20

appropriate remedies in state court. Because this matter is not one purely under

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT--2

1

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and the Court has determined that

2

abstention is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-4 (1971), this

3

dismissal will not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Washington v.

4

Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1058 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

6

Order, enter Judgment, forward copies to Plaintiff at his last known address, and

7

CLOSE the file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any

8

appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable

9

basis in law or fact.

10

DATED this 27th day of December 2016.

11
12

__________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT--3