United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND ENSO
MARSHA J. PECHMAN, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on two motions to dismiss. Both Defendant ENSO and Defendant Department of Vocational Rehabilitation ("DVR") move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 42.) Having reviewed the motions, Plaintiff's response (Dkt. No. 43), the reply (Dkt. No. 45), and all related documents, the Court GRANTS the motions and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants DVR and ENSO.
Defendant DVR is a state agency, tasked with helping individuals with disabilities find employment. ENSO is a charitable organization, whose mission is "promoting individualized community employment for people with developmental disabilities through innovative selfdirected services."
This case concerns Defendants' assessment of Plaintiff for receipt of social services. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff alleges she was mistreated in various ways during the assessment process. (Id. at 2.) She claims the DVR caseworker assigned to her was "not apt, professional, trustworthy, non-biased, or committed." (Id. at 2.) She alleges DVR failed to properly supervise ENSO. The claims directly relating to ENSO are claims 5 and 6, which allege ENSO's Service Delivery Outcome Report contained "bias in the language, insinuate[d], contain[ed] false statements and unfair remarks." (Id. at 5.) In Claim 6, Plaintiff alleges ENSO chose an improper location for the assessment, because "[t]he restroom provided did not have handicap access. No entrance to workplace for a person with physical disability." (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
Compensation/relief to the Plaintiff for my genuine efforts in using the services of the Defendant's [sic] organizations who operate under the law, to gain employment under my expected and known circumstances which accepted, only to face situations out of my control, conspired measures to end my employment opportunity program.
(Id. at 11.) Also, "I would like" help to "bring changes to the Defendants [sic] organizations." (Id.)
The Court previously granted Defendants' motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 34.) Following that dismissal, and with permission of the Court, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in December 2013. (Dkt. No. 35.)
Defendants DVR and ENSO move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 42.) Defendant ENSO argues Plaintiff fails to allege the first element of a §1983 claim-that, as a private entity, it acted under the color of law. Both ENSO and DVR also argue the complaint should be dismissed because it fails to allege any wrongdoing rising to the level of constitutional significance for a §1983 claim.
A. Legal Standard
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a claim must be "facially plausible, " such that it "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and accept all well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Living Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005); Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). ...