Gomez v. Kitsap County et al

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting unopposed 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Kitsap County Sheriff's Department terminated. (TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 5 6 7 MARY ARLENE GOMEZ, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. KITSAP COUNTY, et al., 11 CASE NO. C17-5007BHS Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Kitsap County Sheriff 14 Department’s (the “Sheriff’s Department”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8). The Court has 15 considered the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the 16 reasons stated herein. 17 18 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 6, 2017, the Defendants in this matter removed the proceedings from 19 Kitsap County Superior Court to this Court. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff Mary Arlene Gomez 20 (“Plaintiff”) has raised claims of assault, battery, outrage, negligent infliction of 21 emotional distress, excessive force, false imprisonment, negligence, and violations of 42 22 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Dkt. 1-2 at 4–5. ORDER - 1 1 On February 1, 2017, the Sheriff’s Department moved to dismiss for failure to 2 state a claim. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff did not respond. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 6 sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 7 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the 8 complaint is construed in the plaintiff’s favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301 9 (9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed 10 factual allegations but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a 11 “formulaic recitation” of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. When deciding a motion to 14 dismiss, the Court’s consideration is limited to the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). 15 In this case, the Court agrees that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the 16 Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity capable of being 17 sued under § 1983. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); 18 McCloud v. Pierce Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 2016 WL 3675904, *5 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2016); 19 Wright v. Clark County Sheriff’s Office, 2016 WL 1643988, *2 (W.D. Wash. April 26, 20 2016). Instead, the proper party is Kitsap County. Because the Sheriff’s Department is 21 not a party and Kitsap County is also named as a defendant, the Court dismisses the 22 Sheriff’s Department from this action. ORDER - 2 1 III. ORDER 2 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Sheriff’s Department’s motion to 3 dismiss (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against the Sheriff’s Department 4 are DISMISSED. 5 Dated this 28th day of February, 2017. 6 A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?