Lovell v. Spokane County et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2). The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. File CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (WMK, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

1
2

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

3

Mar 26, 2024

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9
10 GEORGE THOMAS LOVELL, JR.,
11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

No. 2:23-CV-00336-SAB

13
14 SPOKANE COUNTY; SGT. HILL;

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

15 SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL; and
16 UNKNOWN SPOKANE COUNTY
17 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
18

Defendants.

19
20

By Order filed January 24, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff, a resident of

21 Liberty Lake, Washington, of the deficiencies of his civil rights complaint and
22 directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) days. ECF No. 6.
23 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants have not been
24 served. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s directive and has filed nothing
25 further in this action.
26

Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s attempt to assert violations of

27 the PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) was insufficient to state a claim upon
28 which this Court may grant relief. See Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Jail, 2019 WL
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 1

1 95508, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)(“there is nothing in the PREA to indicate that
2 it created a private right of action, [or that it is otherwise] enforceable under §
3 1983.”); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
4 1990) (as amended) (a complaint fails to state a claim if it lacks a cognizable legal
5 theory). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claims of verbal harassment were insufficient to
6 state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254-55
7 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that a prison guard who engaged in “vulgar same-sex trash
8 talk” with inmates was entitled to qualified immunity); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d
9 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that verbal threats and harassment do not state
10 an Eighth Amendment claim). Finally, Plaintiff failed to present factual allegations
11 supporting a claim of the excessive use of force. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,
12 7 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986); Martinez v. Stanford,
13 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).
Having granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend or to voluntarily dismiss

14

15 his Complaint, the Court must assume that his failure to do so is an abandonment
16 of this litigation.
17 //
18 //
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1. For the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend or Voluntarily

3 Dismiss Complaint, ECF No. 6, Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED
4 without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
5 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2).
2.

6

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

7 of this Order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order,

8

9 enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address, and close the
10 file.
11

DATED this 26th day of March 2024.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 3