United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No.
18. Plaintiff, a prisoner currently housed at the Coyote
Ridge Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se. He
initiated this action while incarcerated at the Spokane
County Jail and has paid the full $400.00 fee.
to exceptions not relevant here, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint and renders the original
complaint without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2012).
Furthermore, Defendants not named in an amended complaint are
no longer defendants in the action. See Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the following Defendants have been terminated from
this action: Bob Ferguson, Judge Triplet, American
Corrections Corporation and Department of Corrections.
brings the First Amended Complaint against the Department of
Social and Health Services, Spokane County Superior Court,
and the Supreme Court of Washington State. He complains that
between November 14, 2016, and December 25, 2016, his First
Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievances, as well as his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to a speedy trial, were violated in Spokane County.
states he was arrested on August 6, 2016, and then arraigned
on August 16, 2016. He claims he had been a
“ward” of Spokane County and had been on an
“ankle monitor” since December 1996. He contends
that when was placed at the Eastern State Hospital in the
custody of the Department of Health Services for a competency
evaluation on November 16, 2016, the “90-day statute of
limitations” had already run.
asserts that on December 21, 2016, he read an article
indicating the Department of Social Services, among others,
was being held in contempt in a lawsuit brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union, with fines in excess of $30
million. He claims that he then began petitioning county
governments and courts, to develop a “case of
misconduct.” Plaintiff seeks $90 million for
“fraud, ” claiming his right to a speedy trial
and his rights against double jeopardy were violated. In
addition, Plaintiff seeks to have his criminal record
expunged in its entirety.
OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
previously advised, “neither a State nor its officials
acting in their official capacity are ‘persons'
under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Likewise, “arms of
the State” such as the Department of Social and Health
Services are not “persons” amenable to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id., at 70. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against the
Department of Social and Health Services is dismissed.
states no claim against the Spokane County Superior Court or
the Supreme Court of Washington State upon which relief may
be granted. Plaintiff has presented no facts from which the
Court could infer these entities are “persons”
amenable to suit for damages under § 1983.
extent Plaintiff is complaining that a Spokane County
Superior Court Judge referred him to a state hospital for a
competency evaluation, even after his speedy trial time had
allegedly run, such a claim would be precluded by absolute
judicial immunity. Judges are absolutely immune for all
judicial acts performed within their subject matter
jurisdiction when the plaintiff is seeking damages for a
civil rights violation. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 356 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An act is a “judicial” one
when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the
parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v.
Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990).
immunity exists even when there are charges that the judge
acted maliciously; it exists “however erroneous the act
may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it
may have proved to the plaintiff.” Bradley v.
Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1871); see also Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (a judge should not have
to “fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with
litigation charging malice or corruption.”). While
errors in the complex calculations of speedy trial times may
sometimes occur, Plaintiff has alleged no facts indicating a
judge presiding over his state criminal proceedings acted in
the “clear absence of all jurisdiction, ” when
ordering a competency evaluation. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. at 357. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
TRIAL AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY CHALLENGES
contends that his right to a speedy trial and his right
against being placed ...