Reevis v. No Named Defendant

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Complaint, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This dismissal may count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &# 167; 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. This file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. cc: Attorney General of Washington (LTR, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.) Modified on 7/8/2024 to add file closed language and cc: AG (LTR, Case Administrator).

Download PDF
1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jul 08, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 CHARLES JOSEPH REEVIS, 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. NO NAMED DEFENDANT, 11 NO: 2:24-CV-0105-TOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1915(g) Defendant. 12 13 By Order filed May 2, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies of 14 his complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) 15 days. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff, a pro se civil detainee at the Eastern State Hospital is 16 proceeding in forma pauperis, but without the obligation to pay the full filing fee 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). ECF No. 4. Tana E. Whelan, an Assistant Attorney 18 General for the State of Washington, has entered a notice of appearance on behalf of 19 Defendant, ECF No. 6, although the Court did not direct that the complaint be served 20 on Defendant. ORDER OF DISMISSAL -- 1 1 In the Order to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, the Court found 2 that Plaintiff had failed to present facts supporting an inference that persons named 3 as Defendants to this action caused or personally participated in causing a 4 deprivation of Plaintiff's protected rights. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th 5 Cir. 1981); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). ECF No. 5 at 4. 6 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he did not amend or voluntarily dismiss as 7 directed, his complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted. Id. at 7. 9 Although granted the opportunity to amend, Plaintiff did not do so and has 10 filed nothing further in this action. The Court must assume that he has chosen to 11 abandon this litigation. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order 12 to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, ECF No. 5, the complaint is dismissed 13 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 14 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). 15 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 17 2. This dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 18 3. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED. 19 20 ORDER OF DISMISSAL -- 2 1 4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this 2 Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in 3 law or fact. 4 5. The Clerk of Court is further directed to forward a copy of this Order to the 5 Office of the Attorney General of Washington, Criminal Justice Division. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and Judgment accordingly, 7 provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address and to counsel of record, and 8 CLOSE the file. 9 DATED July 8, 2024. 10 11 12 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER OF DISMISSAL -- 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?