Ju v. State of Washington et al

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle dismissing complaint, allowing for amended complaint and renoting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis: Noting Date 2/16/2018. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

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

6
7
8

FRANCES DU JU,

CASE NO. C17-6082 BHS
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

11

ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND RENOTING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Frances Du Ju’s (“Plaintiff”)
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1).
On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion and proposed complaint.

16

Id. Plaintiff’s claims are based on factual allegations involving the foreclosure and

17

eviction from her home. In June of 2013, Plaintiff’s home was sold at a foreclosure sale.

18

Dkt. 1-1, ¶ 4.5. In July of 2013, Defendant John O’Neill filed an unlawful detainer action

19

in Clark County Superior Court. Id. ¶ 4.6. The court issued a writ, and the sheriff was

20

asked to enforce the writ by removing Plaintiff from her home. Id. ¶¶ 4.7–4.9. The

21

sheriff arrested Plaintiff and booked her into jail. Id. ¶¶ 4.9–4.10. Plaintiff was

22

appointed counsel, and the case proceeded to a jury trial with the jury returning a verdict

ORDER - 1

1

of guilty. Id. ¶¶ 4.14–4.20. The court sentenced Plaintiff to ten days of community

2

service. Id. ¶ 4.20. Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the conviction and sentence

3

through the state courts and eventually to the United States Supreme Court. Id. ¶¶ 4.23–

4

4.28. It seems that Plaintiff failed to complete her sentence of community service, and

5

the City of Vancouver police arrested her. Id. ¶ 4.45. Plaintiff spend four days in jail and

6

asserts that the conditions of confinement violated her rights. Id. ¶¶ 4.45–4.50. After

7

Plaintiff was released from jail, the Clark County Superior Court altered her sentence to

8

time served and removed probation requirements. Id. ¶¶ 4.51–4.52. Based on these

9

allegations, Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action ranging from constitutional violations to

10
11

violations of the code of judicial conduct. Id. ¶¶ 5.1–13.3.
The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

12

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); W.D. Wash.

13

Local Rules LCR 3(b). However, the “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in

14

civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn

15

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has broad discretion in denying

16

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.

17

1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). In this case, Plaintiff’s affidavit and in forma

18

pauperis application show an inability to prepay fees and costs. See Dkt. 1.

19

However, even if a party satisfies the financial requirements for eligibility to

20

proceed in forma pauperis, the Court’s review of the application and underlying

21

complaint is not complete. Under the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss

22

the case sua sponte if it determines at any time that (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue,

ORDER - 2

1

(2) the action is frivolous or malicious, (3) the complaint fails to state a viable claim, or

2

(3) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §

3

1915(e)(2).

4

In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state viable claims on some issues, seeks

5

monetary relief against numerous immune defendants, and is frivolous in some instances.

6

First, Plaintiff may not state a claim under federal criminal statutes, the state court rules,

7

the rules of professional conduct, the code of judicial conduct, or former President

8

Obama’s convention speech. Therefore, the Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’

9

second, third, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action.

10

Second, Plaintiffs asserts claims against defendants that are immune from suit.

11

Judges and courts are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435

12

U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Similarly, prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial

13

immunity, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976), and public defenders are not

14

state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325

15

(1981). Therefore, the Court dismisses with prejudice all courts and prosecutors as

16

defendants and dismisses all constitutional claims against all public defenders.

17

Third, Plaintiff’s claims based on alleged erroneous state-court rulings are barred.

18

The Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of

19

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

20

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon

21

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Although it is not

22

clear in her claims, Plaintiff does seek the relief of vacating her state-court judgment and

ORDER - 3

1

expungement of her state-court criminal record. Any claim based on these ruling and/or

2

seeking such relief are barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.

3

Finally, for the remaining claims, Plaintiff fails to state viable claims. For

4

example, Plaintiff only states the text of the constitutional amendments in her first cause

5

of action. See Dkt. 1-1, ¶¶ 5.1–5.6. Such a vague pleading violates the federal rules of

6

procedure that require “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

7

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Without stating which defendant violated

8

what right, Plaintiff has failed to show that she is entitled to any relief. Therefore, the

9

Court dismisses the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims.

10

The remaining question is whether Plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend.

11

“[A] district court’s denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion

12

unless the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds

13

that amendment would be futile.” Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.

14

2015). In this case, the Court is unable to conclude that any amendment would be futile.

15

Plaintiff may have conditions of confinement claims that are within the statute of

16

limitations and have not been brought in any other action. Therefore, the Court

17

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. An amended complaint shall be filed

18

no later than February 16, 2018 and shall comply with this order. Failure to file an

19

amended complaint will result in DISMISSAL. The Clerk shall also renote Plaintiff’s

20

motion for consideration on the Court’s February 16, 2018 calendar.

21
22

ORDER - 4

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated this 18th day of January, 2018.

3

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5