Hill v. Hess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA HORACE HILL, JR., CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05940-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 KENNETH NESS et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan. Dkt. No. 10. Judge Vaughan recommends dismissing Plaintiff Horace Hill, Jr.’s complaint without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 3.

20 Before issuing the R&R, Judge Vaughan issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Mr. Hill to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 8.

22 Judge Vaughan identified the following defects in Mr. Hill’s complaint: 23 • Six of the eight named Defendants cannot be sued under Mr. Hill’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 24 claim. Id. at 3–4.

1 • Three Defendants—Josephine Townsend, Louis Byrd, Jr., and Phil Ard—are not 2 proper defendants in this action because they are private attorneys or public defenders 3 who cannot be sued as state actors under Section 1983. Id. at 3 (citing Polk Cnty. v. 4 Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).

5 • Three others—Judge David Gregerson, Deputy Prosecutor Ana Joy, and Chief Deputy 6 Prosecutor Anna Klein—are entitled to absolute immunity from the actions Mr. Hill 7 alleges in his complaint. Id. at 3–4 (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 334–36 8 (1983), and Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)).

9 • Younger abstention applies to Mr. Hill’s claims because (1) his requested relief seeks 10 to enjoin his ongoing state court criminal proceedings; (2) those proceedings implicate 11 important state interests; and (3) he failed to show that there is not an adequate 12 opportunity in the state proceedings to raise his challenges. Id. at 4–5 (citing Younger 13 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).

14 Mr. Hill filed a document in response to the Order to Show Cause which failed to address any of the issues identified in the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 9; Dkt. No. 10 at 3. Judge Vaughan therefore recommends dismissing Mr. Hill’s complaint without prejudice for the reasons stated in her Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 10 at 3.

18 Mr. Hill has not filed any objections to the R&R. The Court reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 20 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

23 Therefore, in the absence of any objections by Mr. Hill, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 1 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 10.

2 2. Mr. Hill’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Mr. Hill at his last known 4 address and to Judge Vaughan.

6 Dated this 1st day of March, 2024.

7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge