Shire v. Immigration Custom Enforcement

Filing 18

ORDER. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 14 ) and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot (Dkt. # 11 ). Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable, the Court will dismiss the action. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ABDIKADIR SHIRE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C18-333-RAJ
ORDER

IMMIGRATION CUSTOM
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the

17

Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Adbikadir Shire’s complaint with leave to amend.

18

Dkt. # 3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot. Dkt. # 11.

19

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Immigration

20

Custom Enforcement. Dkt. # 1. The next day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary

21

Restraining Order. Dkt. # 2. On March 8, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for

22

Temporary Restraining Order because Plaintiff did not establish a likelihood of success

23

on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO, that the balance of equities tips

24

in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Dkt. # 3. Plaintiff also

25

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 5. The Honorable Brian

26

A. Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt. # 2. On March 22, 2018, the Court granted

27

Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add Defendants, Washington State Department

28

ORDER – 1

1

of Social and Health Services, Harborview Medical Center, and SIS Security Industry.

2

Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff’s various filings also refer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and

3

Seattle Fire Station 31 as Defendants. Dkt. ## 1, 2, 15.

4

The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court

6

determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on

7

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

8

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203

9

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

10

complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis

11

in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails

12

to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

13

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

14

“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28

15

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL

17

1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule

18

12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule

19

requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all

20

reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903,

21

910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to

22

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

23

Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint

24

liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing

25

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).

26

Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2017, the Defendants shot him with a bullet

27

that contained a transmitter G.P.S. outside of a 7-11. Dkt. ## 1, 2, 14. Defendants then

28

ORDER – 2

1

brought Plaintiff to the hospital and “manually put a neural monitoring device inside

2

[him].” Id. Plaintiff claims that he was assaulted, that this assault caused him severe

3

emotional distress, and that this was a violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff requests

4

damages in the amount of $100 million. Id. Plaintiff provides no other information or

5

details to support his claim.

6

Even construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and

7

giving due deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Amended Complaint fails to state a

8

claim showing he is entitled to relief. The Amended Complaint does not state which

9

Defendant is responsible for which action or how these actions violated his civil rights.

10

Plaintiff fails to provide any details regarding the alleged shooting or his medical

11

condition and fails to provide any support for his request for damages. Assuming that

12

Plaintiff is alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Defendants, the

13

Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations to support such claims.

14

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #

15

14) and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot (Dkt. # 11). Within

16

fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended

17

complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an

18

amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that

19

does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the

20

Court will dismiss the action.

21
22

DATED this 6th day of April, 2018.

23
24

A

25
26

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

27
28

ORDER – 3