Vernon W Officer v. Washington

1

VERNON W OFFICER, JR, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00860-TL

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

August 2, 2023

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Tana Lin United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On June 2 2023, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without a proposed complaint. Dkt. No. 1. In response to a deficiency letter sent by the Court (Dkt. No. 5), Plaintiff filed what the Court understands to be his proposed complaint, which included two large binders worth of documents purporting to provide “probable cause for a civil trial.” Dkt No. 7.^[1]Plaintiff's application for IFP status was granted (Dkt. No. 8), but U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan recommended review of the purported complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The sealed Complaint was entered on the docket on July 18, 2023. Dkt. No. 9. Having reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is likely seeking monetary relief from parties who are immune. The Court therefore DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint.

The Court's authority to grant IFP status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to the requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these requirements is the Court's duty to dismiss the case if the Court determines that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or if Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a party that is immune to such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”).

A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to assume the truth of factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must plead factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, courts must construe the complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). However, a court “should not supply essential elements of the [pro se] claim that were not initially pled.” E.g., Henderson v. Anderson, 2019 WL 3996859, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2019) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., 409 F.Supp.3d 1023, 1031 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“[C]ourts should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants.” (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))).

Plaintiff's purported Complaint here fails to make any “short and plain” claims for relief. Instead, Plaintiff appears to be seeking vindication for what he believes was a wrongful criminal conviction and sentence in state court. While it is unclear on what legal bases Plaintiff seeks relief, which appears to include a claim for $100,000,000 in damages, his asserted facts do appear to indicate that he was provided due process prior to his conviction and multiple opportunities to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence thereafter. The Court also notes that the underlying actions of which he complains, including the investigatory efforts and judicial proceedings that resulted in his conviction, appear to have occurred more than six years ago. Finally, the Court notes that most, if not all, of the defendants named in Plaintiff's purported Complaint are likely either completely immune from civil suit or generally immune from claims for monetary relief in their official capacities. See, e.g., Bird v. Oregon Comm'n for the Blind, 22 F.4th 809, 814 (9th Cir.) (“A state cannot be sued without its consent.”), cert. denied sub nom. Bird v. Oregon Comm'n for Blind, 214 L.Ed.2d 29, 143 S.Ct. 114 (2022); Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If the action [of a state attorney] was part of the judicial process, the prosecutor is entitled to the protection of absolute immunity whether or not he or she violated the civil plaintiff's constitutional rights.”); Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that plaintiff cannot seek monetary damages against a state parole officer acting in their official capacity for alleged constitutional violations under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 related to an arrest for a stale parole violation). Even construing Plaintiff's Complaint as liberally as possible, the Court is unable to ascertain a single plausible legal claim for the monetary relief he seeks against any of the specified defendants and no civil claims that would not otherwise be prohibited on statute of limitations grounds.

Courts will typically allow pro se plaintiffs to amend their complaints in lieu of dismissal unless amendment would be futile because no set of facts can cure the deficiencies. Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. However, the Court cautions Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint must conform to the minimum requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and must be filed in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). This means that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must include a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court...