Durham v. Commissioner's Chambers

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 Dec 23, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN-MICHAEL RAY DURHAM, NO: 2:24-CV-0368-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS, Division III Court of Appeals for the City and County of Spokane, of Washington State; BRIDGET RIGGS; and UNNAMED JUDICIAL STAFF AND OFFICIALS, Defendants.

15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. Plaintiff has not filed a response, timely or otherwise. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and the files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.

1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff, John-Michael Ray Durham (“Durham”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint October 28, 2024, against Defendants alleging civil rights violations.

4 ECF No. 1. This action arises out filings in the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III.

6 The Defendants seek dismissal of this lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

8 DISCUSSION 9 I. Motion to Dismiss Standards 10 A motion to dismiss may be brought for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

13 “The district court resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): Accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).

18 II. The Younger Doctrine 19 Defendants request that because Durham is suing Defendants for conduct related to ongoing state court proceedings, the Court must dismiss the case pursuant to the Younger Doctrine. “Under Younger abstention, federal courts may not grant declaratory or injunctive relief that would interfere with state criminal or civil proceedings, including state administrative proceedings that are judicial in nature.” San Remo Hotel v. City and Cnty of S.F., 145 F.3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 1998). A Younger abstention is required “if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.” Id. 8 In this case, all three factors are met. Durham appears to be involved in ongoing state litigation. The Court must “assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.”

11 Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987). Here, there is no such unambiguous authority that shows Durham will not be afforded opportunity to raise his challenges through state proceedings. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over issues related to ongoing proceedings in state court.

15 III. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 16 Defendants also seek dismissal of Durham’s claims pursuant to the Rooker- Feldman Doctrine. “Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court.”

19 Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 896 (9th Cir. 2003).

20 [a] federal district court dealing with a suit that is, in part, a forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court must refuse to 1 hear the forbidden appeal. As part of that refusal, it must also refuse to decide any issue raised in the suit that 1s “inextricably intertwined” 2 with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision.

3|| Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003).

4 Therefore, the Court concludes Durham’s case falls within the traditional 5|| boundaries of both the Younger and Rooker-Feldman doctrines.

6|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF 8 No. 7, is GRANTED.

9 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

10 3. Plaintiffs’ pending motion before the Court (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as 11 moot.

12 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish Copies to counsel, enter judgment for Defendants, and CLOSE the file.

14 Dated December 23, 2024. | (ROM — Hews. OMe eo 7 17 wel “EO THOMAS O. RICE Tree United States District Judge