Roach v. Meyer Brothers Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc

Filing 12

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 9/22/2014 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

SUSAN ROACH,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C14-5494 RBL

v.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

MEYER BROTHERS ROOFING &
SHEET METAL INC,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Meyer Brothers’ motion to dismiss
Susan Roach’s claims [Dkt. #7]. Roach is suing Meyer Brothers, her former employer, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful termination. Meyer Brothers contends that it cannot be held liable

20

under § 1983.
21

A plaintiff cannot assert a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim for violation of his or her constitutional
22
23

rights against any defendant who is not a state actor. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

24

This determination is made using a two-part test: (1) “the deprivation must . . . be caused by the

25

exercise of some right or a privilege created by the government or a rule of conduct imposed by

26

the government;” and (2) “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may

27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

1

fairly be said to be a governmental actor.” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192

2

F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999).

3

A private entity is not a governmental actor unless it “willfully participates in joint action
4

with state officials to deprive others of constitutional rights.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1048
5
6

(9th Cir.1989). Ms. Roach has failed to plead any facts that indicate Meyers Brothers is, or was

7

acting as, a governmental actor. See Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553-54 (9th Cir.2002) (finding

8

that it is plaintiff’s burden to establish the defendants were acting under color of state law when

9

depriving a plaintiff of a federal right). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is

10

GRANTED, and Ms. Roach’s 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. This

11

dismissal, however, should not be construed as foreclosing the possibility or validity of other
12

federal or state law claims Ms. Roach may have.
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated this 22nd day of September, 2014.
17

19

A

20

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2