Tillison v. State of Washington

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON KEENAN JOSEPH TILLISON, NO: 1:20-CV-3107-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 11 Respondent.

13 By Order filed September 29, 2020, the Court granted Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the Yakima 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 16 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies and as a proper exercise of abstention under Younger v Harris, 401 18 U.S. 37, (1971). ECF No. 8. The Court cautioned Petitioner that failure to show cause would be construed as his consent to the dismissal of this action. Id. at 7. The deadline to file has passed and Petitioner has filed nothing further. l In his petition, Petitioner failed to name a proper party as Respondent. See 2|| Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 3}| 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). He also failed to demonstrate that he exhausted his state 4|| court remedies to the state supreme court. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 5|| 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003).

6 For the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Proceed in forma pauperis and Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 8, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this 8|| action without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Because it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED 10]| the petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 13]| enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address, and close the 14]| file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this || decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue 16]| a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

18 DATED November 3, 2020.

<—— fig 0 Kee 20 amie Lo ~~ THOMAS O. RICE > United States District Judge