Creekmore v. Ferguson

3 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Sep 09, 2020 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NICKY LEE CREEKMORE, 4:20-cv-05082-SAB 10 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 11 v. DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION ROBERT FERGUSON and SCOTT SOUZA, 15 Respondents.

17 By Order filed August 5, 2020, the Court granted Petitioner Nicky Lee Creekmore, a prisoner at the Benton County Jail, leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to show cause why his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be dismissed due to his failure to exhaust state court remedies and as a proper exercise of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. 11. Petitioner filed a timely response on August 12, 2020 entitled, “MOTION ‘SHOW CAUSE’ Response.”

24 ECF No. 12.

25 Petitioner asserts that he has filed various claims in the county superior court, including a “tort” claim, which have been “delayed till after Covid-19.” Id. at 1. He claims he is “suffering Pre-trial Hostile Conditions of Coerhercian [sic], worse than Post-conviction remedies.” Id. It is unclear what Petitioner is asserting. l In any event, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court remedies or that Younger abstention is inappropriate. Therefore, for the reasons Set forth above and in the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 11, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

Because it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Cou. at this time, IT IS ORDERED the petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending Motions are 10} DENIED as moot.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 12| enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 13] that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 14| taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 14| appealability is therefore DENIED. l DATED this 9th day of September 2020.

2 .

Sfrucleyld See Stanley A. Bastian 2 Chief United States District Judge ADIATLD CTINAN ETA DIT UZ TATOR STICCIRIATTIADT AGC ANTI A