Stuart Robinson v. City of Seattle

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Robinson's #7 complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1983. And without an independent basis for jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robison's state-law claim. To avoid dismissal, Robinson must provide a written response within 21 days of entry of this order, limited to 5 pages, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

STUART ROBINSON,

CASE NO. 24-cv-377

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1. INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Barbara Stuart Robinson was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on March 21, 2024. Dkt. No. 4. United States Magistrate Judge S.
Kate Vaughn recommended review of Robinson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). A summons has not yet been issued. See Dkt. Robinson alleges that
employees of the Seattle Police and Fire Departments deprived her of rights secured
by the State of Washington’s constitution. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The Court reviews this
matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and orders Plaintiffs to show cause why her
case should not be dismissed.

23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

2. BACKGROUND

2

Robinson alleges a “Mexican/Hispanic . . . poked [her] with a [n]eedle or

3

sharp object” at “3rd St and Pike.” Dkt. No. 7 at 2. According to Robinson, a 911

4

operator requested police and fire assistance for “Incident # 24-73681,” but neither

5

police nor fire assistance ever came. Id. Instead, the police “sat in their cars and

6

drove by the Plaintiff several times that encouraged plaintiff to suffer additional

7

harm,” depriving her of “[p]ersonal [r]ights to life and liberty within the

8

[c]ommunity and [p]ublic’s view.” Id. at 2-3.
On the same day, in an event she refers to as “Incident 24-73740,” Robinson

9
10

says she suffered additional harm when she was assaulted by a “Mexican female” in

11

a Target store and that an “Officer Wagner” arrived. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. Additionally,

12

Robinson alleges she was “targeted again by a male Mexican/Hispanic up the street

13

from Target,” and the “Hispanic male pulled a weapon out of his pants pocket

14

looked like a gun or taser brandishing at her in a harmful way . . . .” Id. at 2. In this

15

incident, which Robinson refers to “Incident # 24-73808,” she called 911 but alleges

16

the police never came “but sent a text with the incident number claiming they did.”

17

Id.

18

Stemming from these incidents, Robinson brings causes of action against the

19

City of Seattle (“City”) under the Washington State Constitution, including

20

deprivation of “essentials to life without due process of law,” deprivation of liberty

21

without due process of law, violation her equal protection rights. Id. at 3-4.

22

Robinson also brings a negligence claim. See id.

23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

3. ANALYSIS

1
2

“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se

3

motions as well as complaints.” Bernhardt v. L.A. Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.

4

2003). But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any portion of a

5

civil complaint filed in forma pauperis that fails to state a claim upon which relief

6

can be granted, is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

7

immune from such relief.

8
9
10

For the following reasons, the Court believes Robinson’s complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted:
First, Federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

11

Constitution [and] laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Robinson

12

alleges a violation of Washington’s constitution, but she does not allege a federal

13

claim. See Dkt. No. 7. Still, the Court interprets Robinson’s complaint liberally as

14

one for relief for a federal constitutional claim under Section 1983, which would

15

invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

16

Second, even interpreting Robinson’s complaint generously, her claim Section

17

1983 claim likely fails, because a “claim under Monell is the only means of asserting

18

a § 1983 claim against a municipality.” Segura v. City of La Mesa, 647 F. Supp. 3d

19

926, 941 (S.D. Cal. 2022); City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)

20

(“[A] municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality

21

itself causes the constitutional violation at issue.”) (citing Monell v. New York City

22

Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Robinson names the City—a

23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3

1

municipality—as the sole defendant but fails to allege a Monell claim. Thus, her

2

Section 1983 claim against the City of Seattle is not viable.

3

Third, “a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence

4

simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” DeShaney v.

5

Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). Robinson alleges a

6

man poked her with a sharp item in one instance, was assaulted by a woman in

7

another, and was then threatened by a third man. Dkt. No. 7. The only acts she

8

attributes to the City are that Seattle Police drove by her in the first instance and

9

did not leave their car, that an Officer Wagner responded in the second, and Seattle

10

Police did not respond to her third 911 call. See id. The City’s alleged failure to

11

protect Robinson from any of these individuals does not constitute a constitutional

12

violation under Section 1983. Robinson has thus failed to assert a claim under

13

Section 1983.

14

Finally, Robison also alleges a negligence claim under Washington state law.

15

But without her Section 1983 claim, Robison provides the Court no reason to

16

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims that the Court could

17

not hear otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court can decline to exercise

18

supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if the district court dismisses all claims

19

over which it has original jurisdiction).

20
21

4. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Accordingly, Robinson’s complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1983.

22

And without an independent basis for jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise

23

supplemental jurisdiction over Robison’s state-law claim. To avoid dismissal,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4

1

Robinson must provide a written response within 21 days of entry of this order,

2

limited to 5 pages, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed.

3

It is so ordered.

4

Dated this 10th day of May, 2024.

A

5
6

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 5