Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jerry Mackay Fairbanks v. Edgar Salazar, et al.

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4:26-cv-05027

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Mar 03, 2026

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 JERRY MACKAY FAIRBANKS,

No. 4:26-CV-05027-MKD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9 v.

10 EDGAR SALAZAR, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 2, 2026. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also
13 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. A complaint filed
14 by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) is
15 subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that, among other
16 things, is frivolous and fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see Lopez
17 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

18 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San
19 Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff’s
20 Complaint is frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (noting
1 a complaint is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
2 irrational or the wholly incredible”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28

3 (1989) (noting a complaint is frivolous if its factual allegations are “clearly
4 baseless,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”). The Court further concludes Plaintiff’s
5 Complaint fails to state a claim. The date of occurrence of Plaintiff’s claim

6 appears to be December 4, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
7 over seven years later—on March 2, 2026. Thus, even if Plaintiff had raised a
8 non-frivolous claim, it would be untimely. See Boston v. Kitsap Cnty., 852 F.3d
9 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “[i]n Washington, the catch-all three-year

10 limitations period for any other injury to the person or rights of another’ contained
11 in R.C.W. 4.16.080(2) applies to § 1983 claims”) (simplified).

12 The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

13 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further denies leave to amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t
14 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses
15 a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it
16 is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint).

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

18 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B).

20

1 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is
2 DENIED as moot.

3 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal
4 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any
5 arguable basis in law or fact.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
7 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file.

8 DATED March 3, 2026.

9 s/Mary K. Dimke

MARY K. DIMKE

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20