Boyd v. Quigley et al
Filing
6
ORDER to Show Cause or Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke. Plaintiff's show cause response or amended complaint due by 1/26/2018. (Attachments: # 1 (blank) Amended Complaint form, # 2 (blank) Address/Service List, # 3 Pro Se Instruction Sheet)(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff with forms)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
6
BRODERICK J. BOYD,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05869-RJB-TLF
7
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR
AMEND THE COMPLAINT
v.
8
MARK THOMAS QUIGLEY, et al. ,
9
Defendants.
10
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a proposed civil rights complaint. 1
11
12
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of the deficiencies in the
13
complaint discussed herein, however, the undersigned will not direct service of the complaint at
14
this time. Plaintiff, though, will be provided the opportunity by January 26, 2018 to show cause
15
why the complaint should not be dismissed or to file an amended complaint.
16
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pierce County Jail. He sues his assigned defense attorney Mark
17
18
Thomas Quigley and the Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff claims his
19
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated. Dkt. 1, at 1. He alleges that
20
Mr. Quigley engaged in a range of inappropriate behaviors outside the bounds of defense
21
counsel’s professional role. Dkt. 1, at 2-3. He alleges this behavior has left him “emotionally
22
distraught.” Dkt. 1, at 3. He also alleges that the DAC “doesn’t have safety mechanisms in
23
24
1
Dkt. 1.
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND THE
COMPLAINT - 1
1
placed [sic] to safeguard the legal well being of impoverished clients from dysfunctional, well
2
educated attorneys with socio-pathic tendencies.” Dkt. 1, at 2. He asks for a no-contact order,
3
damages, removal of Mr. Quigley as counsel, and his removal from DAC. Dkt. 1, at 3.
4
5
DISCUSSION
The Court declines to serve the complaint because it contains fatal deficiencies that, if not
6
addressed, will lead to a recommendation of dismissal of the entire action for failure to state a
7
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
8
9
Plaintiff’s complaint is brought under § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff
must allege facts showing (1) the conduct about which he complains was committed by a person
10
acting under the color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional
11
or statutory right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, to state a
12
valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the
13
conduct of a particular defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and
14
the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
15
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Mr. Quigley or the DAC. To
16
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing that a defendant acted
17
under color of state law. Wood, 879 F.2d at 587. It is well established that court-appointed
18
defense attorneys like Mr. Quigley are not acting under color of state law when representing
19
clients and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-25
20
(1981); Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2002).
21
In addition, while Pierce County is a municipality that can be sued under § 1983, Monell
22
v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), Mr. Boyd fails to allege
23
how the County's employees or agents acted through an official custom, pattern or policy that
24
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND THE
COMPLAINT - 2
1
permits deliberate indifference to, or violates, his civil rights or that the County ratified the
2
unlawful conduct. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91. As such, Mr. Boyd’s complaint fails to state a §
3
1983 claim against Mr. Quigley or the DAC.
4
5
CONCLUSION
Due to the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve the complaint. Plaintiff
6
may show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed or may file an amended complaint to
7
cure, if possible, the deficiencies noted herein, on or before January 26, 2018. If an amended
8
complaint is filed, it must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety and contain the same case
9
number. Any cause of action alleged in the original complaint that is not alleged in the amended
10
complaint is waived. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in
11
part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
12
The Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it states a claim for
13
relief cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the amended complaint is not timely filed or fails to
14
adequately address the issues raised herein, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this
15
action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the dismissal will count as a “strike” under 28
16
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff should be aware that a prisoner who brings three or more civil actions
17
or appeals that are dismissed on the grounds that they are legally frivolous, malicious, or fail to
18
state a claim, will be precluded from bringing any other civil action or appeal in forma pauperis,
19
“unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND THE
COMPLAINT - 3
1
2
3
The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights complaint and for service, a copy of this Order and the Pro Se Information Sheet.
Dated this 7th day of December, 2017.
4
5
6
A
7
Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND THE
COMPLAINT - 4
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?