Green v. Eastern State Hospital

U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Apr 22, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON WILLIAM EDWARD GREEN, No. 2:24-CV-0046-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL, 11 Respondent.

13 By Order filed March 20, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner William Edward Green to show cause why his pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 15 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be dismissed as a proper exercise of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. 3. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee currently housed at Eastern State Hospital, has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

18 Respondent has not been served.

19 In Petitioner’s timely Response, he states that he is in immediate danger of losing his house as his taxes are due now and his house will be sold at auction on December 6, 2024. ECF No. 4 at 1. He claims that his attorney “seems to be to [sic] caught up in his up coming [sic] trip to Europe than [his] case.” Id. Petitioner asks the Court to help him keep his house by releasing him. Id. at 2.

4 YOUNGER ABSTENTION 5 In its Order to Show Cause, the Court determined that Younger abstention applies to Petitioner’s habeas action and thus, the District Court must not interfere with his ongoing state proceedings unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as a threat of irreparable injury that is “both great and immediate.” ECF No. 3 at 4–6; Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Extraordinary circumstances may also include bad faith or harassment on the part of the state. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 437 (1982).

12 Petitioner does not identify any “extraordinary circumstances” that would warrant an exception to abstention. He appears to assert that Younger abstention should not be applied to this action because he is in immediate danger of losing his house. ECF No. 4 at 1. Although Petitioner contends that his taxes are due now, he does not identify how his house being sold at auction on December 6, 2024 is an immediate injury. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Younger abstention is appropriate, as Petitioner has not asserted facts sufficient to show he is entitled to federal pretrial intervention.

1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s prior Order, 2 No. 3, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Younger abstention.

4 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 ||appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of || appealability is therefore DENIED.

10 DATED this 22nd day of April 2024.

CO. Ok; 12 a mi 7 = Hfpius O. RICE United States District Judge