Lee, II v. City of Seatac Police Department et al

Filing 27

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Robert S. Lasnik; Plaintiff'sclaims against Defts Satterberg and SeaTac Police Department are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before 10/11/2013, an amended complaint. (TF) cc: S Lee

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

SHANNON A. LEE II,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SEATAC POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Case No. C12-1948RSL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

12
13

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff proceeding in form a pauperis filed a second

14

amended complaint in response to the Court’s order granting leave to amend his § 1983

15

claims. Dkt. # 26. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

16
17
18

the City of SeaTac Police Department, SeaTac Police Officers Brian Taylor and Joel
Banks, and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg deprived him of his rights under the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 14. He seeks money damages and equitable relief. Having considered the allegations in

19
20
21

the second amended complaint, the Court finds as follows:
(1) The allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint do not correct the
deficiencies previously identified by the Court with respect to his claims against the

22

SeaTac Police Department or Daniel Satterberg. As the Court stated in its previous

23

order, well-settled Washington law prohibits suits against city and county departments

24

as separate legal entities. See Nolan v. Snohomish Cnty., 59 Wn. App. 876, 883 (1990)

25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1

(“[I]n a legal action involving a county, the county itself is the only legal entity capable

2

of being sued.”); City of Seattle v. Dutton, 147 Wn. 224, 226 (1928) (Seattle Parks

3

Department “is not an entity separate and apart form the city” and therefore, not subject

4

to suit). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the SeaTac Police Department are

5
6
7

DISMISSED with prejudice.
(2) Similarly, Plaintiff’s claims against Satterberg fail to state a claim for relief.
Satterberg is entitled to absolute immunity from liability arising out of his alleged failure
to investigate before filing charges because that activity is within the scope of his quasi-

8
judicial duties. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2009) (prosecutor is
9
10

absolutely immune from liability in civil rights action for failure to investigate before
filing charges based on the quasi-judicial nature of activity). In addition to seeking

11

money damages, Plaintiff appears to seek declaratory relief against Satterberg. Dkt. #

12

26 at 1, 3. Satterberg is also immune from liability for § 1983 claims for declaratory

13

relief. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243, 44 (9th Cir. 1996) (extending

14

judicial immunity to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief). Thus, Plaintiff’s

15

claims against Defendant Satterberg are DISMISSED with prejudice.

16

(3) Turning to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Taylor and Banks, the Court

17

reviews the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pursuant to that statute, the Court

18

must dismiss a case if the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short

20
21

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
purpose of this pleading requirement is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

22
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). “[A] complaint must contain
23
24

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations omitted).

25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 2

1

(4) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to place

2

Defendants Taylor and Banks on notice of the nature of his claims. Though Plaintiff

3

asserts claims arising under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to explain how Taylor and Banks

4

deprived him of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment. His

5
6

conclusory allegations of harm do not give rise to any facially plausible claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

7
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or
8
before October 11, 2013, an amended complaint which clearly and concisely identifies
9
10

each Defendant and explains how that person violated Plaintiff’s legal rights. The key
to filing an acceptable amended complaint will be linking Plaintiff’s factual allegations

11

to a particular Defendant and explaining how those facts support one or more of the

12

claims asserted. If an acceptable amended complaint is not filed within the time

13

proscribed, this action will be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to note this

14

order on the Court’s calendar for October 11, 2013.

15
16

DATED this 12th day of September, 2013.

17
18

A

19

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 3