1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL D. MILAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5842FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED 

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has applied for and received in forma pauperis status. 

(Dkt. # 7). 

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that (l) the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and that (2) the conduct

deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Section 1983 is the appropriate avenue to remedy an alleged wrong

only if both of these elements are present. Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir.

1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986). 

This action appears to challenge the propriety of charges filed in superior court and plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 11 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

asks for dismissal of that criminal case in this case. He also complains of retaliation by unnamed

defendants. Generally, the federal courts will not intervene in a pending criminal proceeding absent

extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. See

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45- 46 (1971); see also Fort Belknap Indian Community v.

Mazurek, 43 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 49 (1995) (abstention appropriate

if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer adequate

opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues); World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of

Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.1987)(Younger abstention doctrine applies when the

following three conditions exist: (1) ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) implication of an

important state interest in the proceeding; and (3) an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions

in the proceedings). 

 Only in the most unusual circumstances is a petitioner entitled to have the federal court

provide intervene by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has

been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65

(9th Cir.1972). See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014

(1980). Extraordinary circumstances exist where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, for

example where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions

or where there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other unusual circumstances that would call

for equitable relief. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54.

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on or before March 11th, 2006 why this action should not

be dismissed 

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and to note the March 11th,

2006 due date on the court’s calendar. 

 

DATED this 8th day of February, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 11 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2