Wetmore-Tinney v. Superior Court et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE - The court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. File Closed. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (MRJ, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-00195-SAB ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/21 1 PageID.43 Page 1 of 3 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 3 Sep 07, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 RAYMOND WETMORE-TINNEY, Petitioner, 10 11 No. 2:21-CV-00195-SAB ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT, JOHN DOE, JANE 14 DOE, SPOKANE PROSECUTORS’ 15 OFFICE, SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL and 16 JAIL COMMANDER BARBER, 17 Respondents. 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Response to the Order to show cause why 20 this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 11. Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee at 21 Spokane County Detention Services, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; 22 Respondents have not been served. 23 By Order filed July 30, 2021, the Court found that federal intervention in 24 Petitioner’s pending state court criminal proceedings was not warranted under 25 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). ECF No. 10. Petitioner had initiated 26 this action with a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ECF No. 1. He now 27 acknowledges that a Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the 28 appropriate vehicle to challenge pre-trial confinement. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 1 Case 2:21-cv-00195-SAB ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/21 PageID.44 Page 2 of 3 Nevertheless, Petitioner has presented no facts from which this Court could 1 2 infer that federal habeas relief is warranted at this time. Petitioner asserts, “There is 3 a clear absence of a[n] adequate, effective state remedy, which would cause 4 extraordinary harm/irreparable harm.” ECF No. 11 at 2. He then describes the 5 health of his mother and his efforts to “help keep her out of a nursing home.” Id. Petitioner claims that “the state is using false fta’s [presumably accusations 6 7 that Petitioner failed to appear at hearings] and false charges to keep him 8 incarcerated in jail at the time of issuance.” Id. Petitioner presents no factual 9 support for his assertions, arguing only that he is being “deni[ed] his presumtion 10 [sic] of innocence” and his “8th Amend, and Due process and Equal Protection of 11 laws” are being violated. Id. He requests discovery. Id. Although Petitioner avers that “due process and bail claims are immediately 12 13 reviewable in federal court,” id. at 3-4, he offers no facts from which the Court 14 could infer that he has been denied due process or subjected to excessive bail 15 without a constitutional hearing. Furthermore, Petitioner argues that Younger 16 abstention is not applicable to his case, but he does not support his argument with 17 any facts. Id. at 5. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the relief he seeks “because he is 18 19 innocent of these false new charges and never found guilty and never comitted 20 [sic] a crime as Exhibit 1 page 2 at 4 states.” Id. Petitioner’s unsupported, self21 serving declarations provide no basis for this Court to intervene in his state court 22 criminal proceedings. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 2 Case 2:21-cv-00195-SAB 1 ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/21 PageID.45 Page 3 of 3 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Show Cause, 2 ECF No. 10, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner seeking 4 appropriate relief in his state court criminal proceedings. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 6 enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 7 that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 8 taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 9 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 10 appealability is therefore DENIED. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?