Krause v. Vancouver Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA LEEROY ELIJAH KRAUSE, CASE NO. C22-5204 BHS-JRC Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 7, and Plaintiff’s “Status Report,” Dkt. 9, which the Court interprets as objections to the R&R. Plaintiff Leeroy Elijah Krause alleges that Defendants Vancouver Police Department, Clark County Officer Nicholaas Gillingham, Clark County Detective Travis Brown, Clark County Corporal Ryan Starbuck, Clark County Sergeant Christopher Simmons, and American Medical Response violated his constitutional rights when they responded to a domestic violence report and questioned him without administering Miranda warnings, used excessive force against him, falsified evidence against him, and injected him with a substance against his will. See Dkt. 1-1. Krause was arrested on allegations of domestic violence and destruction of a police vehicle. Id. at 8–9. He then moved to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a proposed civil rights complaint, alleging various constitutional violations against Defendants. See Dkt. 1.

4 Judge Creatura ordered Krause to show cause why the Court should not abstain from adjudicating his complaint until the resolution of his criminal prosecutions, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Dkt. 4. Krause responded, largely repeating the same allegations contained in his proposed complaint. See Dkt. 6. Judge Creatura then granted Krause’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and recommended that the Court exercise Younger abstention and stay this case pending resolution of Krause’s underlying criminal cases. Dkt. 7. Krause filed a “Status Report” informing the Court that his underlying criminal cases have resolved via plea dispositions and that he seeks to dismiss seven of the nine counts he raised in his proposed complaint.

13 Dkt. 9. He also provided his updated address. Id. The Court interprets Krause’s status report as timely objections to Judge Creatura’s R&R. 15 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

19 Younger abstention applies if “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.”

2 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted).

3 While the Court agrees with the substance of Judge Creatura’s R&R, the circumstances have changed in the month since the R&R was issued. Krause’s underlying criminal cases have resolved via plea agreements and Younger abstention is therefore no longer applicable.

7 The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s Status Report, and the remaining record, does hereby order as follows: 9 (1) The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the R&R; 10 (2) The case is RE-REFERRED to Judge Creatura; and 11 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff at his updated 12 address and to the Honorable J. Richard Creatura.

13 Dated this 8th day of July, 2022.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge