Hollins v. Metro Transit Division et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2006. Noting Date 9/22/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. (Attachments: # 1 R&R Letter# 2 R&R Proposed Order# 3 R&R Judgment)(GB) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2006 (GB, ).

Hollins v. Metro Transit Division et al

Doc. 3

Case 2:06-cv-01225-MJP

Document 3

Filed 08/29/2006

Page 1 of 2

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 KINTA HOLLINS, 09 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff Kinta Hollins (a.k.a. Ken Hollins), proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) METRO TRANSIT DIVISION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) CASE NO. C06-1225-MJP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

15 application, a proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, and a motion for appointment of counsel. 16 (Dkt. 1) His complaint concerns an injury sustained while riding on a bus and names the bus 17 driver "Fintch" and Metro Transit Division as defendants. 18 In order to state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must establish "the violation of a right

19 secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged 20 deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 21 42, 48 (1988). A plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused 22 or personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE -1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01225-MJP

Document 3

Filed 08/29/2006

Page 2 of 2

01 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was injured as a result of a bus 02 making an abrupt stop. This is not a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws 03 of the United States. Rather, it is a personal injury claim that appears to sound in negligence. 04 A local government unit or municipality can be sued as a "person" under § 1983. Monell

05 v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978). However, a municipality cannot be 06 held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs a tortfeasor. Id. A plaintiff seeking to impose 07 liability on a municipality under § 1983 must identify municipal "policy" or "custom" that caused 08 his or her injury. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (citing Monell, 436 09 U.S. at 694). Accordingly, to hold the Metro Transit Division liable, plaintiff must establish that 10 the entity itself caused a constitutional deprivation pursuant to some official policy or custom. See 11 Gillette v. Delmore , 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 691).

12 Plaint iff does not make or support an allegation of such a policy or custom in his proposed 13 complaint. 14 Accordingly, because of the deficiencies in plaintiff's proposed complaint, his in forma

15 pauperis application and motion for appointment of counsel should be denied and this action 16 dismissed with prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 17 18 19 20 21 22 DATED this 29th day of August, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE -2