Abdullah-El v. King County Municipal Court et al

Filing 16

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; denying as moot pltf's 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot pltf's 5 Motion for serving summons, subpoena and complaint; denying as moot pltf's 6 Motion for Summary Judgment; pltf granted leave to amend complaint within 30 days; Clerk directed to seal exhibits 14 ; Plaintiff is advised that any further filings containing his un-redacted date of birth, social security number, passport number, or drivers license number will be returned to him and will not be filed in this case by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc pltf Modified on 1/29/2015 (RS).

1
2
3
4
5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8

HANNIBAL ABDULLAH-EL,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
KING COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

12

Case No. 14-cv-1437RSM
ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE
COMPLAINT AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND

13
14
15

Plaintiff Hannibal Abdullah-El filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. # 3 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges violations of his
constitutional rights arising out of his 2012 confinement at the King County Jail and transfer

16
to the Western State Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Dkt. # 3. Plaintiff brings his
17
18
19

Complaint against thirty-five named individual and entity defendants as well as various
unnamed judicial, municipal, and county officers. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff’s
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court declines to serve Plaintiff’s Complaint on

20

Defendants and provides him leave to file an amended pleading to cure the deficiencies

21

identified herein.

22
23

Applicable Legal Standards

24

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in order to state a

25

claim for relief, a pleading must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1

Court’s jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

2

entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each allegation

3

must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Something labeled a complaint

4

but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity,

5

conciseness, and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the

6
7
8

essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996).
The pleading may not simply allege that a wrong has been committed and demand
relief for it. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). Rather, the underlying
requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” to defendants of the claim being asserted and

9
the “grounds upon which its rests.” Yamaguchi v. United States Department of Air Force, 109
10
11
12

F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997). To meet this requirement, the complaint must allege
sufficient facts that, accepted as true, state a plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at
678. “[N]aked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not do; neither will

13

“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id.

14

(internal alterations and quotations omitted). In sum, the factual allegations in the complaint

15

must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 5445, 555 (2007).

17

In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that:

18

(1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute,

19

and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See

20

Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is

21

therefore to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver,

22
23
24
25

510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To satisfy this second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing
how individually named defendants caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm
alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).
A local government unit or municipality can be sued as a “person” under § 1983.
Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 2

1

However, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 based on its vicarious liability for

2

its employees. Id. Rather, a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality (or county)

3

under § 1983 must identify a municipal (or county) “policy” or “custom” that caused his

4

injury. Bryan County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (citing Monell, 436

5

U.S. at 694). In other words, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s own conduct violated

6

his civil rights. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390-92 (1989).

7
8

Discussion of Plaintiff’s Complaint
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with the standards set forth

9
above and is subject to dismissal prior to service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state
10
11

a claim and for seeking monetary relief against defendants who are immune from suit.
Specifically, the Court alerts Plaintiff to the following deficiencies in his Complaint:

12
13

(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is generally deficient because it fails to satisfy the requirements

14

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint, which including attachments

15

totals 140 pages, is lengthy, confusing, and insufficient to put any of the purported defendants

16

on notice of Plaintiff’s claims against them or the grounds on which these claims rest. The

17

Complaint lacks all of the requisite elements, including a concise statement of the Court’s

18

jurisdiction, of the cause or causes of action asserted, and of the relief that he seeks. The

19

Complaint in its substance lacks specific factual allegations against the named Defendants, the

20

majority of whom are mentioned only in the case caption. Rather, it consists principally of

21

lengthy citations from Plaintiff’s psychiatric reports entirely disconnected from any legal

22
23
24
25

claim. Such a pleading will not do. Instead, Plaintiff must file a concise complaint, which
clearly identifies each defendant, the claims he intends to assert against each defendant, the
specific facts which he believes support his claims against each defendant, and the relief to
which he believes he is entitled.

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 3

1
2

(2) As to the specific defendants identified by Plaintiff in his Complaint, the pleadings are
insufficient in the following respects:

3

a. Plaintiff identifies various county and municipal entities as defendants,

4

including King County Municipal Court, Snohomish County Municipal Court, and the Seattle

5

Police Department. However, “in a legal action involving a county, the county itself is the

6
7
8

only legal entity capable of suing and being sued.” Nolan v. Snohomish County, 59 Wn.App.
876, 883, 802 P.2d 792 (1990). The same principle holds for municipal entities. See Bradford
v. City of Seattle, 557 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1207 (dismissing Seattle Police Department as an
improper defendant). If Plaintiff elects to pursue a claim against King County, Snohomish

9
County, or the City of Seattle, he must specifically identify the County and/or City as a
10
11
12

defendant in this action and must identify, with specificity, the custom or policy of this entity
which allegedly caused his injuries.
b. Plaintiff also appears to identify various Washington State agencies in his

13

Complaint as defendants, including the “Dept. of Licensing,” the “Toll Enforcement Office,”

14

“Labor and Industries (Washington State),” the Washington Department of Social and Health

15

Services (“DSHS”), and Western State Hospital. These entities are also not proper defendants

16

in this action. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that neither a state nor its

17

officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. Will v.

18

Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). States and state agencies are

19

immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment unless a state expressly

20

waives its constitutional immunity. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). The State of

21

Washington has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Whiteside v. State of

22
23
24
25

Washington, 534 F.Supp. 774 (E.D. Wash. 1982). Accordingly, these defendant state entities
are immune from suit. See Banks v. Washington, 2009 WL 3831539 (W.D. Wash. 2009)
(specifically identifying Western State Hospital as an improper § 1983 defendant).
c. So too, the several judicial officers named in Plaintiff’s Complaint are entitled
to absolute immunity from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity for acts that relate to

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 4

1

the judicial process. See Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). This immunity

2

insulates judges from liability even when it is alleged that their actions were driven by

3

malicious or corrupt motives. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). Further, the

4

Supreme Court has extended absolute quasi-judicial immunity to non-judicial officers for

5

“claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions.” Curry v. Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947

6
7
8

(2001) (quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 499 (1991)); see also In re Castillo, 297 F.3d
940, 948 (9th Cir. 2002) (Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985)). Absent facts
specifically showing that these officers acted completely outside of judicial capacity or
jurisdiction, they are not proper defendants in this action. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,

9
11-12 (1991).
10
11
12

d. Plaintiff also named two federal agencies, the Social Security Administration
and the Internal Revenue Service, as defendants though without stating any specific
allegations against them. Section 1983 imposes liability on persons acting under color of state

13

law. See Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). A federal agency is

14

not a person within the meaning of section 1983. See Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898,

15

908 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, state a cause of action under

16

section 1983 against either of these federal agencies. Outside of the § 1983 context, a plaintiff

17

may seek redress for a violation of a constitutionally protected interest by a federal official

18

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, the

19

Supreme Court has held that federal agencies (as opposed to individual, named federal

20

officers) are not subject to liability for damages in such a so-called Bivens action. Plaintiff

21

therefore cannot proceed against these Defendants as to alleged deprivations of his

22
23
24
25

constitutional rights.
e. Finally, Plaintiff names numerous defendants in his case caption against whom
his Complaint is entirely devoid of factual allegations. As to all Defendants, Plaintiff must
allege sufficient, specific facts demonstrating that they personally participated in the violation
of his federal constitutional rights and that they did so acting under color of state law.

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 5

1

Otherwise, Defendants against whom no factual allegations are stated must be dismissed from

2

this action.

3
CONCLUSION

4
5
6
7
8

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary
relief against defendants who are immune from suit. Accordingly, the Court declines to serve
Plaintiff’s Complaint and hereby ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 4), Motion for Serving Summons,

9
Subpoena, and Complaint (Dkt. # 5), and Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 6)
10
11
12

are DENIED as MOOT.
(2) Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies
described above. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing these deficiencies

13

within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. The amended complaint must carry

14

the same case number as this one. If no amended complaint is timely filed, this action

15

will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

16

(3) Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint operates as a complete substitute for

17

his original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.3d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

Thus, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendants, the constitutional

19

claim or claims asserted, the specific facts which plaintiff believes support each claim,

20

and the specific relief requested. Failure to comply with the pleading standards

21

described herein will also result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice and

22
23
24
25

without leave for further amendment.
(4) Plaintiff is again advised (see Minute Order, Dkt. # 13) that he must redact (i.e. blackout or remove) sensitive personal identifying information from any of his electronic or
paper filings in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2; LCR 5.2. Information that must be
redacted in whole or in part includes Plaintiff’s date of birth, social security number,

26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 6

1

passport number, and driver’s license number. See LCR 5.2. The Clerk is DIRECTED

2

to SEAL the exhibits posted by Plaintiff at Dkt. # 14, which include such sensitive

3

personal identifying information in contravention of the Court’s earlier Minute Order.

4

Plaintiff is advised that any further filings containing his un-redacted date of birth,

5

social security number, passport number, or driver’s license number will be returned

6
7
8
9
10

to him and will not be filed in this case.
DATED this 28 day of January 2015.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 7