English v. Pierce County et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

JERAD T. ENGLISH,

CASE NO. C17-5574 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Pierce County’s (“County”)

14

motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the

15

motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated

16

herein.

17

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

On August 7, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff Jerad English’s (“English”) motion

19

to proceed in forma pauperis and accepted his complaint. Dkt. 2. English asserts a cause

20

of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County for failure to properly administer the

21

Department of Assigned Counsel (“DAC”) and failure to properly train the attorneys

22

working there. Id.

ORDER - 1

1

On October 26, 2017, the County filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 9. On November

2

30, 2017, the Court granted English’s motion for an extension of time to respond and

3

noted the County’s motion for consideration on the Court’s December 8, 2017 calendar.

4

Dkt. 12. English did not respond.

5
6

II. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such

7

failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local

8

Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). The Court considers English’s failure to respond as an

9

admission that the County’s motion has merit.

10

Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

11

Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

12

sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department,

13

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the

14

complaint is construed in the plaintiff’s favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301

15

(9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed

16

factual allegations but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a

17

“formulaic recitation” of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965.

18

Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

19

Id. at 1974.

20

In this case, the County has established that English’s complaint should be

21

dismissed for numerous reasons. First, the County argues that English’s federal claim is

22

barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Dkt. 9 at 6–9. The Court agrees. English

ORDER - 2

1

alleges that, on November 1, 2013, he learned that his assigned counsel gave him

2

incorrect advice regarding an out of state warrant for his arrest. Dkt. 3, ¶ 16. English

3

filed his complaint in July of 2017, which is more than three years after the date he

4

allegedly received incorrect advice. Therefore, English’s § 1983 claim is barred by the

5

statute of limitations.

6

Second, the County argues that English fails to state a plausible claim for relief.

7

Specifically, the County asserts that English fails to allege a systemic failure by DAC to

8

provide counsel for the accused, that the County acted with deliberate indifference, or

9

that the County’s alleged failures were the cause of English’s injuries. The Court agrees

10

that the complaint lacks sufficient allegations to establish the elements of a § 1983 claim.

11

Therefore, the County has established that English has failed to state a claim on the

12

merits.

13

Regarding the appropriate relief, in the event the court finds that dismissal is

14

warranted, the court should grant the plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would

15

be futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

16

Although English could possibly correct the identified deficiencies regarding the merits

17

of his claim, the Court finds that any amendment would be futile because his claim is

18

barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court dismisses English’s § 1983

19

claim with prejudice.

20

Regarding the state law claims, a district court may decline to exercise

21

supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all

22

claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this case, the

ORDER - 3

1

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over English’s state law claims and

2

dismisses them without prejudice.

3

III. ORDER

4

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the County’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) is

5

GRANTED; English’s § 1983 claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; English’s state law

6

claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; and the Clerk shall close this case.

7

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2018.

A

8
9

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4