United States District Court, W.D. Washington
November 12, 2014
DERICK OWUSU, Plaintiff,
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants
Derick Owusu, Plaintiff, Pro se, SEATTLE, WA.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mary Alice Theiler, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION
This is a pro se civil rights action proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Derick Owusu has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis . Service has not been ordered. This Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and the balance of the record, concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable ground for relief in this action. This Court therefore recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B).
On September 10, 2014, plaintiff presented to this Court for filing a civil rights complaint under § 1983 in which he asserted that he has been denied his rights in four pending King County Superior Court criminal cases. ( See Dkt. 3.) More specifically, plaintiff alleged that his efforts to discharge his attorney due to ineffective assistance of counsel have been denied, that he has been denied leave to proceed pro se in his criminal proceedings, and that he has been denied his right to a speedy trial. (Id.) Plaintiff identified King County Superior Court Judge James Rogers, defense attorney Jeffery Goldman, and prosecuting attorney Lindsey Grieve as defendants in his complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff requested relief in the form of an order from this Court discharging his criminal defense attorney and directing a change of judge in his superior court proceedings. (Id.) Plaintiff also requested that this Court dismiss the " false allegations" pending against him in superior court on the grounds that his speedy trial rights have been violated. (Id.)
After reviewing plaintiff's complaint, this Court determined that plaintiff had not stated a cognizable ground for relief under § 1983 and, thus, the Court issued an Order directing petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. 4.) Plaintiff was advised in the Order to Show Cause that federal courts generally will not intervene in a pending state court criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. (Id. at 2, citing Younger v.Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)). Plaintiff was further advised that his complaint did not reveal any extraordinary circumstances which would appear to justify this Court's intervention in his ongoing state court criminal proceedings. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a response to the Order to Show Cause. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Order to Show Cause on September 30, 2014. (Dkt. 5.) In his response, plaintiff essentially re-asserts the claims asserted in his complaint, albeit in slightly more detail, and he requests the same relief; i.e., an order discharging his criminal defense attorney, directing a change of judge in his superior court criminal proceedings, and dismissing the " false allegations" pending against him in superior court. Plaintiff does not, however, identify any extraordinary circumstances which would justify this Court's intervention in his ongoing state court criminal proceedings. Accordingly, plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable ground for relief under § 1983.
As plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint a cognizable ground for relief, this Court recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed without prejudice, prior to service, under § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS
Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on December 5, 2014.