From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothwell v. Superior Court of Wash.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Dec 27, 2016
NO: 2:16-CV-00285-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2016)

Opinion

NO: 2:16-CV-00285-SMJ

12-27-2016

LAWRENCE JOHN ROTHWELL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SPOKANE, and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11, and a Statement of Claim, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the Spokane County Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; Defendants have not been served.

By Order filed September 14, 2016, the Court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his initial complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss. After liberally construing Plaintiff's submissions in the light most favorable to him, the Court finds that he has failed to cure the deficiencies in the initial complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, as well as the dismissal of current criminal charges for failure to register. He appears to allege his prior incarceration was illegal because, he "was convicted and sentenced before the crime they say [he] committed." ECF No.11 at 5. In essence, Plaintiff is complaining that his felony judgment and sentence filed on February 22, 2013, was dated February 22, 2012.

Plaintiff asserts that, because he was not permitted to take anything with him to prison, he did not receive a copy of this judgment and sentence until March 2016, when the Department of Corrections apparently "served violations." At worst, Plaintiff has alleged a clerical error in the dating of a prior judgment and sentence. This alone does not render his prior incarceration invalid. Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

For the reasons set forth above and in the Court's prior order, IT IS ORDERED this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking appropriate remedies in state court. Because this matter is not one purely under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and the Court has determined that abstention is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-4 (1971), this dismissal will not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1058 (9th Cir. 2016).

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment, forward copies to Plaintiff at his last known address, and CLOSE the file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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.

DATED this 27th day of December 2016.

/s/_________

SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rothwell v. Superior Court of Wash.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Dec 27, 2016
NO: 2:16-CV-00285-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2016)
Case details for

Rothwell v. Superior Court of Wash.

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE JOHN ROTHWELL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Date published: Dec 27, 2016

Citations

NO: 2:16-CV-00285-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2016)