Bailey v. City of Olympia Prosecutor

1

JARED J BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OLYMPIA PROSECUTOR, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-cv-05973-RJB

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

May 8, 2023

ORDER ON CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

ROBERT J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants City of Olympia Prosecutors R. Tye Graham and Rosemary Hewitson and the City of Olympia Police Department's (collectively “City Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25 refiled in redacted form at 32, referred to here as Dkt. 25) and Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Join Parties Thurston County Prosecutor, Jon Tunheim, and Thurston County Jail (Dkt. 38), which should be construed as a motion to amend the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motions, including several of Plaintiff's late responses to the City Defendants' motion, and the file herein.

The Plaintiff filed this case, pro se, on December 15 2022 and paid the filing fee. Dkt. 1. After several deficiencies were identified in his Complaint, he was given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint, which he did. Dkts. 6 and 8. This case arises from the arrest and prosecution of the Plaintiff. Dkt. 8. The Plaintiff has filed several frivolous pleadings in this case. Many of his allegations are not plausible.

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint's caption lists “Thurston County and City of Olympia et al” as defendants, and later complains of actions alleged to have been taken by the City of Olympia Police Department and “defendants.” Id. Adding to the confusion, in one of his responses to the City Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff states he is suing “City of Olympia Police Department” and “City of Olympia Prosecutor Offices of Chief prosecutor R. Tye Grahm [sic] and Rosemary Hewittson [sic],” and that the “City of Olympia is not listed as any defendant.” Dkt. 40 at 3-4. For purposes of the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will construe all the Plaintiff's pleadings liberally, and consider the claims as being asserted against the City of Olympia, City of Olympia Prosecutor Offices, R. Tye Graham, and Rosemary Hewitson, who shall collectively be referred to as the “City Defendants.”

For the reasons provided below, the City Defendants' motion for the Court to take judicial notice of pleadings filed in a criminal matter currently pending against the Plaintiff in Thurston County, Washington Superior Court should be granted their motion to consider certain documents incorporated into the Amended Complaint by reference should be denied without prejudice, and their motion for the dismissal of all claims asserted against them in this case should be granted.

This opinion will first turn to the motion for judicial notice and incorporation by reference, then address the motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), and lastly the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his Amended Complaint to add additional parties. Although the City Defendants also assert other grounds for relief, including improper service of process, there is no need to reach those issues because the claims against them should be dismissed on other grounds.

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b): “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of a pleading under Rule 12(b)(6), a court reviews only the allegations in the complaint and any attachments or documents incorporated by reference. Koala v. Khosla, 931 F.3d 887 894 (9th Cir. 2019). “Certain written instruments attached to pleadings may be considered part of the pleading. Even if a document is not attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint it the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

Although for purposes of a motion to amend or for a motion to dismiss the court ordinarily credits the allegations in the complaint as true, it need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice . . . by exhibit” or incorporated by reference into the complaint. Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, 759 F.3d 1112, (9th Cir. 2014); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998)(the court is “not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint”).

The City Defendants move the Court to take judicial notice of the pleadings filed in the criminal matter, State of Washington v. Jared Jason Bailey, Thurston County, Washington Superior Court case number 22-1-01222-34. The motion (Dkt. 25) should be granted. Judicial notice should be taken of the Information (refiled in this case at Dkt. 26-1 at 18) and the “Harassment-No Contact Orders” (refiled in this case at Dkts. 26-2 at 2-5) (protecting Defendants here, Rosemary Hewitson and Tye Graham, from the Plaintiff here) filed in that criminal case. Judicial notice should also be taken of the public docket in that case.

The City Defendants also move the Court to incorporate into the Amended Complaint, by reference, the Reporting Officer Narratives, Incident Reports, and Case Supplemental Reports which purport to detail the victim reports, the City of Olympia Police Department's investigation, and the Plaintiff's arrest. (The Amended Complaint is the operative complaint rendering the Plaintiff's original complaint “without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)).

The City Defendants' motion regarding incorporation of these pleadings (the Reporting Officer Narratives, Incident Reports, and Case Supplemental Reports) into the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 25) should be denied without prejudice. These pleadings are not necessary to decide the motion fairly.

I. FACTS

The following facts are taken from the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, judicially noticed facts, and facts from pleadings incorporated by reference.

Like his initial complaint, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. 8) is, in places, difficult to follow and many of the allegations are not plausible. Sometimes referring to himself as “Jared Bailey the Supreme Court,” he cites to various constitutions, statutes, international treaties, and other legal works. Dkt. 8. As is relevant here, in his Amended Complaint, he alleges that:

On December 8, 2022, the defendant(s) - under colour of law and without a warrant, or probable cause affidavit - did ambush, and assault, and kidnap, and torture, and criminally confine the Plaintiff. The defendant(s) confined the Plaintiff for approximately four (4) days and three (3) nights. While he was confined, the defendant(s) - without a warrant and without probable cause, and without affidavit - broke into the Plaintiff's lawful residence and entered his home and business located at 1801 4^th Ave E., Olympia, WA 98506 where they proceeded to take property belonging to Jared Bailey and his ministry. . .

Dkt. 8 at 1. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint further asserts that:

On December 9, 2022 A.D., at three o'clock thereabouts, the defendant(s) proceeded to file claims against the Plaintiff in the Superior and District Court(s) claiming that Jared Bailey is a member of a “black race” and whose Constitutional rights the court was not bound to respect. The Plaintiff lawfully Claims that his race is the Human Race . . . [he] is not a member of any “black race” . . . nor is there any document or record - previous to the now publicly recorded publication of the vicious lie FALSELY CLAIMING that Jared Bailey is a “black male” . . . [he] has maintained that it is a violation of his freedom of religious expression to be forced to submit to a race that is not his own is to be ALIENATED from Allah and to be self alienated from al a.

Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original). He contends that as a result, he has been “publicly violated,” his “rights to suffrage,” and rights under the Constitution to “establish his and express his faith free from persecutions” have been violated. Id. He claims that the Defendants made these false claims on the public record. Id. at 2. The Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that the Defendants have committed treason against the United States and maintains that his “kidnapping” was a “failed attempt to traffic him into free prison labor for the State of Washington.” Id.

The Amended Complaint further alleges that the Defendants violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section III of the United States Constitution, the “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, and 1871, “the Enforcement Act I [sections II and III], the Enforcement Act II [sections V and VI],” and the “False Claims Act [31 U.S.C. §§ 3729].” Id. at 3-5. He points to “Lafferty Sandy Hook v. Alex Jones.” Id. at 3. He also refers to treason and international treaties. Id. He claims billions of dollars in damages. Id. at 6.

The following facts come from the publicly available docket sheet from State of Washington v. Jared Jason Bailey Thurston County, Washington Superior Court case number 22-1-0122234: The docket in that case indicates that Plaintiff had a preliminary appearance in court on December 9, 2022 (the day after his arrest). An...