Hopkins v. Warren et al
Filing
7
ORDER re 6 Amended Complaint; Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 1/7/2014 (DN). (cc to pltf)
1
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
DENNIS R HOPKINS,
CASE NO. C13-6000 RBL
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND FOR IFP
STATUS
JAMES E WARREN, et al.,
12
[DKT. # 6]
Defendants.
13
14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hopkins’ “amended complaint
15 addendum authorities of law to amended filed amended complaint of December 18, 2013” [Dkt.
16 #6]. The document appears to be an addendum to his December 18 proposed amended
17 complaint [Dkt. #4], apparently intended to act as legal support for the claims made in that
18 document.
19
This Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP on that
20 complaint, because it alleged that a variety of private individuals violated Hopkins’
21 constitutional rights when they evicted him and stole his property. [See Dkt. #5]. The Order
22 explained that one cannot assert such claims under §1983 unless the defendants are “state
23 actors.”
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR IFP
STATUS - 1
1
Hopkins’ addendum seems to argue that the defendants conspired with Pierce County
2 Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend to deprive him of the rights, or perhaps that the eviction’s
3 use of the court system makes the defendants state actors themselves. But the Complaint he
4 recently filed is the same one he filed in December; it does not name any state actors as
5 defendants. And it could not name the judge who entered any orders in the eviction case; she is
6 immune as a matter of law from such suits. See Mireles v Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 (1991)(“It is
7 well settled that judges are generally immune from suit for money damages.”)
8
The amended complaint continues to suffer from the same fatal defect: it fails to state a
9 claim upon which relief may be granted, because the defendants are facially not state actors.
10 Plaintiff may have state law claims for theft, discrimination, or otherwise, but his constitutional
11 claims against the private, named defendants are fatally defective. The Motion to proceed IFP is
12 DENIED, and the constitutional claims are DISMISSED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated this 7th day of January, 2014.
16
A
17
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
[DKT. # 6] - 2
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?