Zayas v. Rollins

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Ms. Zayas shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail herein no later than Wednesday, 7/3/2024. Failure to file this Response will result in case dismissal.The Co urt further warns Ms. Zayas that she appears to be ignoring prior Court Orders and filing numerous duplicative cases. If she continues down this path, she may be deemed a vexatious litigant and barred from further frivolous filings. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, Plaintiff, 11 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 12 13 Case No. C24-764RSM DESIREE ROLLINS, Defendant. 15 16 Pro se Plaintiff Myriam Zayas was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this 17 matter on June 3, 2024. Dkt. #4. The Complaint has been posted on the docket. #5. Summons 18 has not yet been issued. The Court has determined that this case must be reviewed prior to 19 20 21 issuing summons. Ms. Zayas is well known to the Court, having filed roughly thirty pro se cases in the last 22 four years. Most of these cases relate to state family law matters or bring claims against the 23 people Ms. Zayas has encountered through the state family law system. See, e.g., Case No. 24 25 26 C21-581-RSM (Plaintiff sued a kindergarten teacher who testified in her child’s dependency hearing); Case No. C22-642-RSM (Plaintiff sued Washington State’s Secretary of the 27 Department of Children, Youth, and Families and others alleging a conspiracy to turn 28 Washington’s child dependency process into a sham forced-adoption process); Case No. C23- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1   1 5165-BHS (Plaintiff sued a regional supervisor with the state Department of Children, Youth, 2 and Families for “stalking” her and her children for more than fifteen years and removing 3 plaintiff’s children from her without “probable cause”). In all of the above cases, the claims 4 were dismissed, Ms. Zayas appealed, and the appeals were unsuccessful. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Last year, the undersigned issued an Order noting: Since 2020, Plaintiff has filed 17 different lawsuits (not including the instant action) against various Defendants in this district. In nearly all of these cases, Plaintiff alleges § 1983 civil rights violations arising from the state’s dependency proceedings. Most pertinently, in Zayas v. Owens et al., the parties entered a stipulation dismissing all of Plaintiff’s civil rights claims “with prejudice and on the merits” against all defendants, including DCYF, in which Plaintiff agreed and acknowledged “that she cannot later file another lawsuit asserting the same claims or causes of action against defendant[] DCYF.” Owens et al., 2:20cv-00650-TLF, Dkt. #44 at 1–2. The Court dismissed that action with prejudice as stipulated. Id. at Dkt. #45. Similarly, Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families et al. was dismissed with prejudice upon the parties’ stipulation, wherein again Plaintiff agreed and acknowledged “that she cannot later file another lawsuit asserting the same claims or causes of action against . . . DCYF.” Department of Children Youth & Families et al., 2:20-cv00981-JLR-TLF, Dkts. #26, 30. In both of these cases, Plaintiff raised claims under § 1983 alleging that DCYF denied her constitutional due process and equal protection rights during her still ongoing state court dependency proceedings. In Zayas v. Department of Children Youth and Families, the Honorable Tana Lin found Plaintiff did not plead any new facts or changes in the law since those previous cases that would justify resurrecting claims Ms. Zayas previously agreed to dismiss with prejudice. Zayas v. Department of Children Youth and Families, 2:22-cv01085-TL, Dkt. #6. Judge Lin therefore found that Ms. Zayas failed to plausibly state an individual civil rights claim under § 1983 against DCYF upon which relief could be granted and dismissed her § 1983 claim with prejudice. However, Judge Lin did not dismiss her facial and as-applied constitutional challenge to RCW 13.34.030(6)(c). Id. Judge Lin later dismissed Ms. Zayas’s remaining claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Zayas, 2:22-cv-01085-TL Dkt. #15. 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Here, Ms. Zayas brings the same § 1983 claim against Defendant Ross Hunter in his capacity as Director of DCYF. By the same rationale, Ms. Zayas’s once again fails to state a claim under § 1983 against Ross Hunter upon which relief can be granted and her § 1983 against this defendant must be dismissed. Case No. C22-642-RSM, Dkt. #13 at 3–5. More recently, Plaintiff alleged that Julie DeCamp, a “supervisor” located at a Kent Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) office “used her authority to remove my 8 child with no predeprivation hearing and using a dependency order from 2 years ago.” Zayas v. 9 DeCamp, Case No. C24-640-RSM, Dkt. #5 at 4. That event allegedly took place on April 30, 10 11 12 2024. Id. Ms. Zayas brought a claim under § 1983 alleging race and eye color discrimination. The Court dismissed that action for failure to state a claim because Ms. Zayas appeared to be 13 contesting a state family law court ruling; Ms. Zayas has filed an appeal. Case No. C24-640- 14 RSM, Dkts. #6 and #8. 15 16 Ms. Zayas now alleges that Desiree Rollins, a “CPS Supervisor” located at the same Kent address as Julie DeCamp, engaged in “racial and eye color discrimination.” Dkt. #5. She 17 18 brings a claim under § 1983. The facts of the Complaint are very thin. She begins with 19 “DEFENDANT IS NOT IN MY JURISDICTION BUT SHE IS SUPPOSEDLY the area 20 administrator THERE IS NO DEPENDENCY CASE WITHOUT MY SIGNATURE 21 ACCORDING TO THE LAW UNDER RCW 13.34.110 SHE STILL HAS MY KID IN A 22 23 24 FOSTER HOME WITHOUT MY SIGNATURE AND AGREEMENT AND SHE IS NOT EVEN BASED IN MY CITY.” Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). The events giving rise to the 25 claim occurred on the same day as the DeCamp case, April 30, 2024. Id. Her statement of 26 facts fails to orient the Court as to what happened, instead reading as a response to the Court’s 27 Order of Dismissal in the DeCamp case. See id. at 4–5 (“This claim is not frivolous a crime is 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3   1 happening against me right now this is not a frivolous claim…. Rooker Feldman will never 2 apply because the state case is not in my name it’s in my child’s name…”). Later, Ms. Zayas 3 states, “[s]he has violated my right to substantive due process by means of oppression, her 4 agency has withheld my child from me for many years without my signature and consent.” Id. 5 6 7 at 5. This Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises 8 frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 10 11 12 The Court strongly believes Ms. Zayas is challenging the Court’s ruling in the DeCamp case by filing a new lawsuit against a different person in the same state agency for the same 13 agency action that occurred on April 30, 2024. The proper way to challenge the Court’s ruling 14 is to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has already happened. 15 16 To the extent Ms. Zayas is not challenging the Court’s ruling in the DeCamp case, but is instead raising new allegations unrelated to that case, such is not at all clear from this 17 18 Complaint. 19 The Court believes dismissal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the 20 reasons previously identified in all of her prior cases cited above. The Complaint filed by Ms. 21 Zayas in this case does not contain adequate information. It is not possible for Defendant to 22 23 24 respond without further details. Defendant and the Court cannot piece together Ms. Zayas’s factual and legal allegations by reviewing prior cases; such allegations must be contained in a 25 single complaint that conforms to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Furthermore, the Court 26 believes that dismissal is warranted for the same reasons as in all her prior cases touching on 27 her state family law matters. Ms. Zayas’s new claims appear to be targeting individual people 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4   1 who work for Washington State’s Department of Children, Youth & Families (“DCYF”) 2 contrary to the rulings in the prior cases cited above.1 In Response to this Order, Ms. Zayas 3 must write a short statement telling the Court why this case should not be dismissed as 4 duplicative of her DeCamp case and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 granted. This Response may not exceed six double-spaced (6) pages. Attachments or amended pleadings are not permitted. The Court will take no further action in this case until Ms. Zayas has submitted this Response. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Ms. Zayas shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail above no later than Wednesday, July 3, 2024. Failure to file this Response will result in case dismissal. 13 The Court further warns Ms. Zayas that she appears to be ignoring prior Court Orders 14 and filing numerous duplicative cases. If she continues down this path, she may be deemed a 15 vexatious litigant and barred from further frivolous filings. 16 DATED this 3rd day of June, 2024. 17 A 18 19 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 “DCYF is the state’s newest agency. It oversees several services previously offered through the state Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. These include all programs from the Children’s Administration in DSHS such as Child Protective Services’ investigations and Family Assessment Response, licensed foster care, and adoption support.” About Us, Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families, https://dcyf.wa.gov/about/about-us (last accessed June 3, 2024). ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?