Opinion
Case No. C18-1224-JLR-JPD
10-26-2018
NGHIA NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION
This is a pro se civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Nghia Nguyen has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. Service has not been ordered. This Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and the balance of the record, concludes that plaintiff has not stated a viable claim for relief in this action. The Court therefore recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
On August 20, 2018, plaintiff presented to this Court for filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff, who is currently awaiting trial in King County Superior Court on unspecified criminal charges, alleged in his complaint that his constitutional rights had been violated by various infirmities in his ongoing criminal proceedings. (See Dkt. 5 at 3; Dkt. 5-1.) Plaintiff claimed that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial and to effective and conflict free counsel, and that there was no evidence to support the charges pending against him. (See id.) Plaintiff identified King County, the Chief Judge, and King County Prosecutor Daniel T. Satterberg as defendants in this action. (See Dkt. 5 at 1, 2.) Plaintiff requested injunctive and declaratory relief to "force" his criminal case to trial and to "be able to move for dismissal and release." (See id. at 3, 4.)
After reviewing plaintiff's complaint, this Court determined that plaintiff had not stated a viable claim for relief under § 1983 and, thus, the Court issued an Order directing plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. 6.) Plaintiff was advised in the Order to Show Cause that resolution of the claims asserted in his complaint would necessarily result in this Court becoming involved in his ongoing state court proceedings, and that federal courts will generally not intervene in such proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. (Id. at 2, citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).) Plaintiff was further advised that his complaint did not reveal any extraordinary circumstances which would justify this Court's intervention in his ongoing state court criminal proceedings. (Id.)
Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a response to the Order to Show Cause. (Id.) However, rather than file a response to this Court's Order, plaintiff elected instead to appeal the Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Dkt. 7.) On September 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that this Court had not issued any orders that are final or appealable. (Dkt. 7.) On October 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate formally concluding the appeal. (Dkt. 10.)
As plaintiff has made no effort to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause, and as nothing in the record before this Court suggests that there are any extraordinary circumstances which would justify this Court's intervention in plaintiff's ongoing state court proceedings, this action should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit by no later than November 16, 2018. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motion calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on November 23, 2018.
This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Thus, a notice of appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the assigned District Judge acts on this Report and Recommendation.
DATED this 26th day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge