Orteg-Merritt v. YCDOC

1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 31, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOE ORTEG-MERRITT, NO: 1:23-CV-3158-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v. YCDOC, WADOC, YAKIMA COUNTY JAIL-MEDICAL- ADMIN, and YAKIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Joe Orteg-Merritt, a prisoner currently housed at the Yakima County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint on October 13, 2023. ECF No. 1. On November 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, advised him of the deficiencies of his complaint, and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss the Complaint within sixty (60) days. See ECF Nos. 5 and 6. Specifically, Plaintiff did not name as Defendants any persons amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or state how any individual Defendant caused or personally participated in causing a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights. See Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). ECF No. 6 at 4–7.

5 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to amend his complaint as directed, the Court would dismiss it for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 7 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). Id. at 11. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s directives and has filed nothing further in this action. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

10 For the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, ECF No. 6, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1).

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 (1) The complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 16 upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 17 1915A(b)(1), but without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing appropriate 18 state appellate and federal habeas relief.

19 (2) Based on this Court’s reading of Washington v. Los Angeles Cty.

20 Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), this dismissal will NOT 21 count as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1 (3) This case is DISMISSED and CLOSED.

2 (4) The Court certifies that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in 3 good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file.

6 DATED January 31, 2024.

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON Senior United States District Judge