IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ZACHARY FRANK SEIDEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRAD JOHNSON, 

Defendant. 

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge: 

3:15-cv-02135-PK 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Zachary Frank Seidel brings this prose civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 1 See Comp!. (#2). Seidel alleges that defendant police officer Brad Johnson violated his 

civil rights by placing him under anest. Seidel is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to a 

previous Order ( #6) of the court. 

On December 29, 2015, I issued an Order to Show Cause (#7) why Seidel's case should 

not be dismissed under the abstention principles announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 

(1971). Seidel filed his Response (#11) to the Order to Show Cause on January 19, 2016. For 

the reasons provided below, I find that Seidel's action should be dismissed. 

1 Seidel attempts to assert his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 242, which criminalizes civil rights 

violations. See Comp!. 3 (#2). That provision does not create a private cause of action. See, 

e.g., Rockefeller v. US. Court of Appeals Office, for Tenth Circuit Judges, 248 F. Supp. 2d 17, 

23 (D.D.C. 2003). However, because Seidel is a prose litigant, I liberally construe his 

Complaint as asse1iing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901F.2d696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Archer v. Potter, No. CIV.05-25-BR, 2005 WL 

3823041, at*! (D. Or. Dec. 2, 2005). 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION-PAGE 1 

Case 3:15-cv-02135-PK Document 12 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 4
BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an incident during a city council meeting at Astoria City Hall on 

June 1, 2015. During that meeting, Seidel took to the podium and "began speaking on the 

legality of actions surrounding coxcomb hill cell phone tower conspiracy." Comp!. 3. Seidel 

was subsequently arrested by Johnson, who Seidel claims is a party to the conspiracy. Id. As a 

result, Seidel is currently defending against three criminal charges, to which he has pleaded not 

guilty. Id. Seidel now seeks an injunction restricting Clatsop County law enforcement agencies 

and personnel to performance of emergency services only. See Comp!. 5. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

"Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 

extraordinary circumstances." Espinoza v. 1\Iontgomery, 107 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 

2015) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54). Younger and its progeny cases generally require 

federal district courts to abstain from granting injunctive relief when state criminal actions are 

pending against the federal plaintiff at the time he commences the federal action. See, e.g., 

Gilbertson v. Albright, 381F.3d965, 975 (9th Cir. 2004) (en bane). 

This court must dismiss an action brought in Jonna pauperis if it determines that the 

action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).2 Prose pleadings must be liberally construed. See, e.g., Balistreri, 901 

F.2d at699; Archer, 2005 WL 3823041, at *l. 

2 "[S]ection 1915(e) applies tO all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 

prisoners." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION-PAGE 2 

Case 3:15-cv-02135-PK Document 12 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION 

Seidel's action should be dismissed under the abstention principals set forth in Younger. 

Under Younger, "federal courts should almost never enjoin state criminal proceedings." 

Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 975 (en bane). "[A]n exception to abstention applies ifthe state 

proceedings demonstrate 'bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstances that 

would make abstention inappropriate."' Baffert v. California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 

617 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

As a threshold matter, I find that the injunctive relief sought by Seidel would clearly 

interfere with the ongoing state criminal proceedings against him. Again, Seidel seeks an 

injunction restricting Clatsop County law enforcement agencies and personnel to perf01mance of 

emergency services only. See Comp!. 5. Such an injunction would, at the very least, prevent 

Johnson-who is likely an important witness in the criminal case against Seidel-from 

participating in the state criminal proceedings. 

Next, I find no indication of extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention 

in this matter. Therefore, the court should abstain and dismiss Seidel's action. See Younger, 401 

U.S. at 54; Baffert, 332 F.3d at 617; see also 1Vfitchell v. 1vfitchell, No. C15-1259RAJ, 2015 WL 

6829628, at *2, 5-6 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2015) (holding that a plaintiff fails to state a claim for 

relief when his complaint is baned by the Younger abstention doctrine); Taylor v. Alexander, No. 

CV 13-0983-PHX-RCB, 2013 WL 5781095, at *4 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2013) (same) (citing Yahoo! 

Inc. v. La Ligue Cantre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1224 (9th Cir. 2006)); 

Penwell v. O'Donnell, No. C08-1697-JLR-BAT, 2009 WL 187915, at *l (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 

2009) (same). 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION-PAGE 3 

Case 3:15-cv-02135-PK Document 12 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION 

For the reasons provided above, this action should be dismissed without prejudice. 

Seidel's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (#3) should be denied as moot. Judgment should be 

entered accordingly. The Court certifies that an appeal from an Order adopting this Findings and 

Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if 

any, are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. Ifno 

objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that 

date. If objections are filed, then a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a 

copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

NOTICE 

A party's failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a 

waiver of that party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and 

will constitute a waiver of the pmiy's right to review of the findings of fact in any order or 

judgment entered by a district judge. The Findings and Recommendation are not immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

/s/ ---<f-"~~~~~~~~ 

Honorable Paul Papak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION-PAGE 4 

Case 3:15-cv-02135-PK Document 12 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 4