Opinion
3:24-cv-05198-BHS-BAT
03-29-2024
HORACE HILL, JR., Plaintiff, v. ANNA JOY, et al., Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, Horace Hill, Jr., a pro se pretrial detainee of the Clark County Jail seeks 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relief against Prosecuting Attorney Anna Jay, Detective Sandra Aldridge, and the Vancouver Police Department alleging in Count I of his complaint selective or discriminatory prosecution, in Count II fabricating false evidence and interfering with civil rights, and in Count III entrapment and denial of a fair trial. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff requests this Court order his release from state pre-trial custody, terminate the no-contact order the state court issued and award him $1,000,000 in money damages. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. Dkt. 5.
The Court screens complaints filed by detainees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is: (1) frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915A(b); accord § 1915(e)(2); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Court having considered Plaintiff's complaint recommends it be dismissed without prejudice. Leave to amend should be denied because no amendment would cure the barriers to relief currently, and thus amendment would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (the Court may deny leave to amend if “it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect.”).
DISCUSSION
A. The Complaint
Plaintiff's allegations revolve around his arrest, detention, and the pending criminal charges filed against him in Clark County Washington. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges “Selective/Discriminatory prosecution Ana Joy and Sandra Aldridge violation of equal protection clause. Dkt. 6 at 4. In support, Plaintiff alleges he and his wife Bianca Hill have no contact orders “on each other.” On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff was arrested and booked into the Clark County Jail. Plaintiff alleges Ms. Hill reached out to Plaintiff using an account from “Jessica Johnson” and on June 29, Plaintiff reached out to Jessica not knowing it was Ms. Hill. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Joy allowed Ms. Hill to reach out to him and then charged him when he reached out a person with whom he was ordered to have no contact. Plaintiff also claims Detective Aldridge mismanaged the investigation of the contact between Plaintiff and Ms. Hill and Ms. Hill should also have been charged with violating a no-contact order. Id. at 5.
In Count II, Plaintiff alleges “Fabricating false evidence conspiracy to interfere with civil rights-Anna Joy Sandra Aldridge.” Id. at 7. Specially, Plaintiff alleges Biance Hill was allowed to commit the crime of violation of a no-contact order in the hopes that Plaintiff would respond so he could be charged with violating a no contact order. Plaintiff contends the police investigation falsely makes it appear that Plaintiff initiated contact and that the police performed a poor investigation of the matter.
And in Count III, Plaintiff alleges “Due process and rights to a fair trial violations USCS Constitution Amend 5 & 6 entrapment - Anna Joy, Sandra Aldridge.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff claims these defendants conspired to set him up to violate the no contact order and that he was thus charged with a crime in bad faith. Id.
B. The Court must Abstain from Interfering with Plaintiff's On-going State Criminal Proceeding
Plaintiff's complaint fails because Plaintiff may not challenge the propriety of on-going or pending criminal proceedings in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Plaintiff faults Defendants for his prosecution and the quality of the investigation underlying his pending criminal charges and detention. However, a Federal Court may not intervene in a pending criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45, 46 (1971).
The Younger abstention doctrine requires a district court to dismiss a federal action if state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) afford the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass'n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Each of the Younger criteria are satisfied here. Plaintiff's state proceedings are ongoing, involve a state criminal prosecution that implicates important state interests, and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff cannot raise in his criminal case the same claims he raises hereor that there is a danger of great and immediate irreparable harm. Therefore, this action would unduly interfere with the state criminal proceeding in a way Younger disapproves and it should be dismissed without prejudice.
The claims Plaintiff raises are claims or defenses the state criminal courts have addressed and thus his claims can be presented in the state courts. See e.g. State v. Alonzo, 45 Wn.App. 256, 258 (Div. I 1986) (addressing Defendants' motion they were selectively prosecuted); State v. Arbogast, 199 Wn.2d 356, 378 (2022) (affirming finding Defendant presented sufficient evidence to obtain an entrapment defense); State v. Rafay, 168 Wn.App. 734, 115 (Div. I 2013) (Defense may present evidence about inadequacy of investigation but admission of such evidence requires proper foundation).
OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL
This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore, Plaintiff should not file a notice of appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until the assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case.
Objections, however, may be filed no later than April 17, 2024. The Clerk should note the matter for April 19, 2024, as ready for the District Judge's consideration. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.