Wetmore-Tinney v. Superior Court

1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 3 Sep 07, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON RAYMOND WETMORE-TINNEY, No. 2:21-CV-00195-SAB 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUPERIOR COURT, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, SPOKANE PROSECUTORS’ OFFICE, SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL and JAIL COMMANDER BARBER, 17 Respondents.

19 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Response to the Order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 11. Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee at Spokane County Detention Services, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; Respondents have not been served.

23 By Order filed July 30, 2021, the Court found that federal intervention in Petitioner’s pending state court criminal proceedings was not warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). ECF No. 10. Petitioner had initiated this action with a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ECF No. 1. He now acknowledges that a Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the appropriate vehicle to challenge pre-trial confinement.

1 Nevertheless, Petitioner has presented no facts from which this Court could infer that federal habeas relief is warranted at this time. Petitioner asserts, “There is a clear absence of a[n] adequate, effective state remedy, which would cause extraordinary harm/irreparable harm.” ECF No. 11 at 2. He then describes the health of his mother and his efforts to “help keep her out of a nursing home.” Id. 6 Petitioner claims that “the state is using false fta’s [presumably accusations that Petitioner failed to appear at hearings] and false charges to keep him incarcerated in jail at the time of issuance.” Id. Petitioner presents no factual support for his assertions, arguing only that he is being “deni[ed] his presumtion [sic] of innocence” and his “8th Amend, and Due process and Equal Protection of laws” are being violated. Id. He requests discovery. Id. 12 Although Petitioner avers that “due process and bail claims are immediately reviewable in federal court,” id. at 3-4, he offers no facts from which the Court could infer that he has been denied due process or subjected to excessive bail without a constitutional hearing. Furthermore, Petitioner argues that Younger abstention is not applicable to his case, but he does not support his argument with any facts. Id. at 5.

18 Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the relief he seeks “because he is innocent of these false new charges and never found guilty and never comitted [sic] a crime as Exhibit 1 page 2 at 4 states.” Id. Petitioner’s unsupported, self- serving declarations provide no basis for this Court to intervene in his state court criminal proceedings.

23 // // // // // // 1 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 10, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner seeking appropriate relief in his state court criminal proceedings.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the 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 a certificate of 9)| appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

13 : Souler Eee Yoar Stanley A. Bastian 16 Chief United States District Judge