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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDA MIGCHELBRINK,

Defendants.

Case NO. C06-5200 RJB/KLS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

NOTED FOR:

 AUGUST 25, 2006

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has been

granted in forma pauperis status. (Dkt. # 5). By order dated June 6, 2006, the court declined to

serve plaintiff’s proposed complaint (Dkt. # 1) and denied plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. # 4),

because neither the proposed complaint nor the proposed amendment stated a claim upon which

relief could be granted. Upon review of the plaintiff’s pleadings, it appears plaintiff is presently

litigating claims in the Washington Court of Appeals. The court advised plaintiff of the deficiencies

in his pleadings and instructed him to file an amended complaint curing, if possible, the defects by

June 30, 2006. Before the court is plaintiff’s response. For the reasons stated below, the court

Case 3:06-cv-05200-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 5
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

recommends that this action should be dismissed with prejudice as it is frivolous and fails to state a

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 

PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS

In his proposed complaint (Dkt. # 1) and proposed amended complaint (Dkt. # 4), it

appeared that plaintiff was asking this court to issue an injunction prohibiting the assistant attorney

general from recommending a course of action to the Washington State Court of Appeals in a

pending personal restraint action. Plaintiff’s pleadings contained nonsensical and disjointed legal

conclusions, for which he sought legal damages in excess of $1 million. Plaintiff’s latest submission

suffers from the same deficiencies. Plaintiff’s “Answer to Order Allowing An Amended Complaint”

(Dkt. # 8), is merely a string of disjointed, legal conclusions and questions. Plaintiff’s submission

contains no causes of action and no prayer for relief. Again, however, plaintiff questions counsel’s

authority to recommend dismissal of his personal restraint petition at the state court of appeals. 

Plaintiff states as follows:

Pursuant to a [prp], personal restraint petition, RCW 10.73.090 &

RAP 16.4( c)., Washington State Court Rules of Appellate Procedure., States

That Any Personal Under An “[UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT]” (Limited

Freedom” Resulting From A [CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDING]” [or],

some other Disability. SEE: (AA), (BB).

RCW 49.60 [DISCRIMINATION]

FRANKLIN COUNTY V. SELLARS 27 WN. APP. 797 (1980)

[REFERENCE CASELAW TO DISCRIMINATION]

Pursuant to ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWELVE Of The

Washington State Constitution [PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIE(s) Clause]”,

The [PRP] Is, by Washington Constitutional Law, (Considered a Privilege).

(AA) RAP 16.4( c)(2) [IN VIOLATION OF “FEDERAL CONSTITUTION]

(BB) RAP 16.4( c)(6) [CONDITION(s) OR MANNER OF RESTRAINT IN

VIOLATION ]

Pursuant to RCW 10.73.090., The [PRP] Is By Washington State

Statute, (Law)., a Right To Bring a “[COLLATERAL ATTACK]”Against

An: “[UNLAWFUL CONVICTION].”

Case 3:06-cv-05200-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 5
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

By Who(s) Authority Did Amanda Migcelbrink Recommend To The

Washington “Court of Appeal(s), Where The Plaintiff Has [prp] Filed, That It

Should Be Dismissed?

Even If The Plaintiff [Was] Using The [prp] To Attack The

“[CONDITION(s) OF CONFINEMENT]”, The Plaintiff Would Be Allowed

Pursuant to RAP 16.4( c)(d) . .

Amanda Migchelbrink Recommended That the [PRP] Be Dismissed, &

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Be Brought In It(s) Place. This Is “(Erroneous &

Completely Contradictory]” To The Scope of RAP 16.4( c)(d).

The Plaintiff Drafted The [prp] To Attack The, His “[CONDITION(s)

OF PROBATION]” & The Condition(s) Of Confinement Being a By-Product

Thereof, & Under RAP 16.4( c)(d)., Is Not Even The Issue Anyway.

(Dkt. # 8, p. 1-2).

DISCUSSION

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed before service of process under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Leave to amend is not necessary where it is clear

that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). 

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, 45l U.S. 527, 535 (l98l), 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 l350, l354 (9th Cir. l985), cert.

denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (l986). Although plaintiff was given guidance and an opportunity to amend,

he has failed to provide the court with an amended complaint that states a cognizable cause of action

under Section 1983. Plaintiff has alleged no constitutional violation. There is no constitutional right

of federal court intervention in a state court action.

Case 3:06-cv-05200-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 5
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4

Moreover, federal courts will generally not intervene in a pending state 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). Only in the most

unusual circumstances is a plaintiff entitled to have a federal court intervene by way of injunction

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). Extraordinary circumstances exist

where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, for example where a 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.

There is no indication here that plaintiff does not have the ability to raise and litigate federal

claims in state court and indeed, would appear to be actively doing so. Plaintiff continues to provide

the court with nonsensical documents which state no cause of action. Plaintiff fails to state a claim

that rises to the level of a constitutional violation and merely reiterates his obvious disagreement with

positions taken in an action apparently proceeding in state court. Accordingly, the undersigned

recommends that this case proceed no further.

CONCLUSION

This court should not intervene in a pending state court proceeding absent extraordinary

circumstances. There is no evidence of extraordinary circumstances in this case. In addition,

plaintiff’s complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(1), and counted as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

Case 3:06-cv-05200-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 5
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 5

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time

limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on August 25,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05200-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/02/06 Page 5 of 5