UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

TODD BREWER, Case No. 4:25-cv-00079-BLW Plaintiff, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY v. SCREENING JUDGE

JANIECE PRICE,

Defendant.

The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Todd Brewer’s Complaint because of Plaintiff’s status as an inmate and in forma pauperis request. A “conditional filing” means that a plaintiff must obtain authorization from the Court to proceed. Upon screening, the Court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint if Plaintiff intends to proceed. 1. Standards of Law for Screening Complaints A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009).

To state an actionable claim, a plaintiff must provide “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest” that the defendant committed the unlawful act, meaning that sufficient facts are pled “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal [activity].” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of

a cause of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 US. at 678 (quoting Twombly,

). The Court liberally construes the pleadings to determine whether a case should be dismissed for a failure to plead sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory or for the absence of a cognizable legal theory. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional

claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable factual and legal basis. See Jackson v. Arizona,

(9th Cir. 1989) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000). 2. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee held in the Bannock County Jail. Plaintiff claims that his attorney in his pending state court criminal case, Scott Andrews, is not providing adequate representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Compl., Dkt. 3, at 1–3. Plaintiff also claims that his right to a speedy trial has been violated. Id. at 2. Plaintiff names Janiece Price as the Defendant in this case. However, the Complaint does not include any allegations against Price. 3. Discussion

Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff 28 days to amend the Complaint. Any amended complaint should take into consideration the following. Plaintiff brings claims under

, the civil rights statute. To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the

Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates,

(9th Cir. 1991). A defendant causes a constitutional deprivation within the meaning of § 1983 “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation.” Johnson v. Duffy,

(9th Cir. 1978). A plaintiff cannot simply restate these standards of law in a complaint. Instead, a plaintiff must provide specific facts supporting the elements of each claim and must allege facts showing a causal link between each defendant and Plaintiff’s injury or damage. Alleging “the mere possibility of misconduct” is not enough. Iqbal,

. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations against Defendant Price, who is the only named Defendant. Thus, the Complaint does not state a plausible civil rights claim. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff intended to name his criminal defense attorney as a defendant in this action, any civil rights claim against that attorney is implausible. It is well-established that “a public defender does not act under color of state law when

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson,

(1981). Indeed, a defense attorney “is not acting on behalf of the State; he is the State’s adversary.”

at 322 n.13 (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are implausible. Plaintiff’s claims also appear subject to dismissal based on the doctrine announced

in Younger v. Harris,

(1971). In that case, the United States Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the principle of comity between state and federal courts, holding that federal courts generally must abstain from hearing civil rights claims related to pending state criminal cases. Adjudicating such claims is allowed only in the rarest of circumstances—that is, where “the threat to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights …

cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single [state] criminal prosecution.”

. A federal court should abstain under Younger if three factors are present: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates an important state interest; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to raise the

constitutional challenge. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,

(1982). Where abstention is appropriate, a court may still entertain the action, but only if “extraordinary circumstances” are present. Such circumstances include (1) where irreparable injury is both “great and immediate”; (2) where the state law is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions”; or (3) where there is a showing of “bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.” Younger,

, 53–54.

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not establish the sort of extraordinary circumstances that warrant an exception to the Younger abstention principle, nor has he shown that his claims cannot be fairly adjudicated in the state court proceeding. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 4. Standards for Amended Complaint

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the actions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

(9th Cir. 1980), abrogated on other grounds by Kay v. Ehrler,

(1991). Plaintiff must also allege a sufficient causal connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Taylor, 880

F.2d at 1045; Johnson v. Duffy,

(9th Cir. 1978). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss” or to survive screening under

and 1915A. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

(9th Cir. 1982); see also Iqbal,

(“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions

devoid of further factual enhancement.”) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Rather, for each cause of action against each defendant, Plaintiff must state the following: (1) the name of the person or entity that caused the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (2) facts showing the defendant is a state actor (such as state employment or a state contract) or a private entity performing a state function; (3) the dates on which the conduct of the defendant allegedly took place; (4) the specific

conduct or action Plaintiff alleges is unconstitutional; (5) the particular constitutional or statutory provision Plaintiff alleges has been violated; (6) facts alleging the elements of the violation are met; (7) the injury or damages Plaintiff personally suffered; and (8) the particular type of relief Plaintiff is seeking from each defendant. In addition, Plaintiff must include facts showing that Plaintiff’s claims are not subject to dismissal under

Younger. Further, any amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s allegations in a single pleading and cannot rely upon, attach, or incorporate by reference other pleadings or documents. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 15.1 (“Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must reproduce the entire pleading

as amended. The proposed amended pleading must be submitted at the time of filing a motion to amend.”); see also Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1997) (“[An] amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty.,

, (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner

& Co., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the district court erred by entering judgment against a party named in the initial complaint, but not in the amended complaint). Plaintiff must set forth each different factual allegation in a separate, numbered paragraph. The amended complaint must be legibly written or typed in its entirety, and it should be clearly designated as an “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff’s name and address

should be clearly printed at the top left corner of the first page of each document filed with the Court. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must also file a “Motion to Review the Amended Complaint.” If Plaintiff does not amend within 28 days, or if the amendment does not comply with Rule 8, this case may be dismissed without further

notice. See Knapp v. Hogan,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant simply cannot state a claim.”). ORDER IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has 28 days within which to file an amended complaint as described above. If Plaintiff does so, Plaintiff must file (along with the amended complaint) a Motion to Review the Amended Complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal if Plaintiff

no longer intends to pursue this case.1

1 A voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is not a dismissal for frivolity, for maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, does not count as a “strike” under

(g). 2. If Plaintiff does not file a timely amended complaint, this case may be dismissed with prejudice and without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, failure to prosecute, or failure to comply with a Court order. See

and 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

as DATED: May 5, 2025

i A» B. Lynn Winmill ica) U.S. District Court Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 8