Bradley v. City of Federal Way et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The court ADOPTS the 30 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice because the claims therein are time barred or are not cognizable.(CL) (cc: pltf)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6

ALONZO LAMAR BRADLEY,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.

C12-1021 TSZ

9
10

FEDERAL WAY POLICE OFFICERS
JOHN P. BUSTER and RAYMOND
R. BUNK III,

11

ORDER

Defendants.

12
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
13
(“R&R”) of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, docket
14
no. 30, as to which plaintiff has filed a five-page objection, docket no. 31, and defendants
15
have filed a response requesting that the Court adopt the R&R, docket no. 35. Having
16
reviewed the R&R, plaintiff’s objection, defendants’ response, and plaintiff’s amended
17
complaint in this matter, docket no. 27, the Court hereby enters the following order.
18
19

Discussion
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that, on or about August 29, 2008,

20
defendants Federal Way Police Officers Buster and Bunk subjected plaintiff to “police
21
brutality” and “attempted to entrap [plaintiff] into a violation of a no-contact order.”
22
23
ORDER - 1

1 Amended Compl. at § IV (docket no. 27 at 3 & 7). Plaintiff did not commence this
2 action until June 12, 2012. See IFP Appl. (docket no. 1). Thus, plaintiff’s claims against
3 defendants Buster and Bunk, relating to the events of August 29, 2008, are barred by the
4 three-year statute of limitations for actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5

Plaintiff’s amended complaint also references misdemeanor charges in case

6 number CA4925, which plaintiff asserts Officer Buster arranged to have brought against
7 him in retaliation for filing a tort claim. Amended Compl. at § IV. The Federal Way
8 Municipal Court has no case with the number “CA4925,” but case number CA0049529
9 was filed against plaintiff on November 4, 2008. Because the Federal Way Municipal
10 Court has no other criminal matter involving plaintiff, the Court interprets plaintiff’s
11 amended complaint and objection as indicating that case number CA0049529 remains
12 unresolved. See Amended Compl. at § IV (“these charges are still open”); Obj. at 3 (in
13 2010, plaintiff “noticed that the municipal charges were not going to be resolved anytime
14 soon”). To the extent that plaintiff asserts a malicious prosecution claim premised on a
15 pending criminal matter, his claim lacks merit, as set forth in the R&R, because he cannot
16 establish that the underlying criminal proceeding terminated in his favor. On the other
17 hand, to the extent that plaintiff asks this Court to enjoin or otherwise interfere with the
18 Federal Way Municipal Court action, plaintiff seeks relief that is precluded by Younger v.
19 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny.
20

In his objection to the R&R, plaintiff states that “the case [he is] in prison for is

21 directly connected to the Bunk and Buster no contact order case.” Obj. at 2 (docket
22 no. 31). He reasons that “since I got out of the no contact issue that was designed to have
23
ORDER - 2

1 me sent to prison, then [sic] have me charged with something more serious seeming and
2 have me convicted by any means.” Id. Plaintiff accuses Fife Police Officer Robert
3 Eugley of falsely arresting him, as a result of which he has “been sitting in prison ever
4 since.” Id. at 4.
5

Plaintiff is currently serving an exceptional sentence of 72 months, having been

6 convicted of felony harassment, possession of a controlled substance, and obstructing a
7 public servant. State v. Bradley, 2012 WL 1356759 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2012).
8 Fife Police Officer Eugley, who arrested plaintiff and transported him to the Pierce
9 County Jail, was the victim of the felony harassment. Id. Plaintiff’s assertion that Fife
10 Police Officer Eugley somehow retaliated against him for his complaints against Federal
11 Way Police Officers Buster and Bunt does not state a plausible cause of action against
12 Officers Buster and Bunt. Plaintiff has not named Officer Eugley as a defendant, and he
13 presents no reason why his amended complaint against Officers Buster and Bunt should
14 not be dismissed with prejudice.
15 Conclusion
16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:

17

(1)

The Report and Recommendation, docket no. 30, is ADOPTED;

18

(2)

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice because the

19 claims therein are time barred or are not cognizable; and
20

(3)

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment consistent with this Order, to

21 close this case, and to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record, plaintiff pro se,
22 and Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.
23
ORDER - 3

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED this 18th day of January, 2013.

3
4

A

5

THOMAS S. ZILLY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 4