Briones v. Bellingham Police Department et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint, without prejudice. Dkt. # 9 . Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above within fourte en (14) days from the date of this Order. 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 that Court will dismiss the action. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED as moot. Dkt. # 7 . Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (KRA) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
AARON C. BRIONES,
CASE NO. 24-cv-01063-RAJ

Plaintiff,
BELLINGHAM POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

16
17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

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

20 Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 9.
21

On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff, Aaron C. Briones, filed this action against Defendants

22 Bellingham Police Department, Bellingham Mayor’s Office, the City of Bellingham, Brian
23 Henirich, Seth Fleetwood, Rebecca Mertzig, Kim Lund, and Hannah E. Stone. Dkt. # 6.
24 In doing so, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The
25 Honorable S. Kate Vaughn granted the application. Dkt. # 5.
26
27
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM- 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court
determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis
complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis
in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails
to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-cv-378, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4
(W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a
court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences
arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The
plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a plaintiff proceeds
pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs.
Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010)).

24
25
26
27
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM- 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

III.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely incomprehensible and provides very few details
regarding Defendants’ alleged actions. Plaintiff appears to state that the Bellingham Police
Department has intimidated and threatened Plaintiff over the last three years.

The

allegations lack specificity, but they indicate law enforcement officers have approached
him to tell him he has “no right to be in Bellingham” and have threatened to arrest him on
more than one occasion. Mr. Briones also states that the Bellingham Police Department
failed to investigate an assault Plaintiff experienced in July 2022. Plaintiff asserts he has
sustained injuries as a result of that assault that have not fully healed, but these injuries
appear to be unrelated to any police conduct. Plaintiff states he has tried to meet with the
police chief and mayor about these issues, but he has not had success.
Plaintiff’s claim for relief states in a conclusory fashion that the city police have
harassed him and did not investigate his assault claims. While Plaintiff appears to allege
police misconduct, the complaint contains no allegations explaining descriptions or names
of the officers involved, when the acts occurred, or how the allegations are relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. There are no allegations that a police officer arrested
Mr. Briones without probable cause or used excessive force. Without more specific
allegations, Plaintiff has not alleged an officer engaged in pattern of harassing behavior.
Even construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and giving due
deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, his complaint fails to state a claim showing he is
entitled to relief.

22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM- 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IV.

CONCLUSION

Taking these allegations as true and construing them liberally, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. The Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint, without prejudice. Dkt. # 9. Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above within fourteen (14)
days from the date of this Order. 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 that Court will dismiss the action.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED as moot. Dkt. # 7. Plaintiff may
renew this motion after he has amended the Complaint addressing the deficiencies above.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

12
13
14
15
16

A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM- 4