United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
RICHARD L. POPE, JR., Plaintiff,
CITY OF BELLEVUE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 25). Having thoroughly
considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record,
the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS
the motion for the reasons explained herein.
case arises out of Plaintiff's arrest for domestic
violence. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.) On the morning of March 20,
2013, Plaintiff called 911 to report that his live-in
girlfriend, Lana Wilkinson-who was also his daughter's
former caretaker-was interfering with the custody and control
of his daughter, K.P. (Id.; Dkt. No. 14 at 2.)
Officers Robertson, Collins, and McDade of the Bellevue
Police Department responded, but did not take any action.
(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.) Later that day, Officers Collins,
McDade, Steppe, and Auclair responded to a 911 call reporting
that Plaintiff “physically removed” Ms. Wilkinson
from his car and “physically prevented her from
re-entering” it. (Id.) The police officers
arrested Plaintiff and left K.P., a 10-year-old with autism,
in the care of Ms. Wilkinson. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff
filed suit. (Dkt. No. 1-1.)
initial motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and
Plaintiff's claims for negligence, negligent supervision,
tortious interference, unconstitutional taking, inverse
condemnation, discrimination, and civil rights violations
against the City of Bellevue were dismissed with prejudice.
(Dkt. No. 21 at 7.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's civil
rights claim against individual officers without prejudice
and granted leave to amend the complaint. (Id.)
Plaintiff's amended complaint is now before the Court on
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.)
amended complaint primarily restates claims that the Court
previously dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 23 at 9-14.)
Although Plaintiff acknowledges that causes of action one,
four, five, six, eight, and nine were dismissed, he
incorrectly interprets the Court's order granting leave
to amend as giving him carte blanche to add new causes of
action to the complaint. (Dkt No. 32 at 7; Dkt. No. 23 at
16.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his §
1983 claim against the officers, nothing more. (Dkt. No. 21
at 7.) Therefore, the Court will not address causes of action
two, three, and seven in addition to those listed above.
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
moves to strike Docket No. 25, page 2, lines 1-6. (Dkt. No.
32 at 7.) However, the content Plaintiff wishes to strike was
not considered by the Court in deciding the motion to
dismiss. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to strike
(Dkt. No. 32 at 7).
complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move for dismissal when
a plaintiff “fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). On a 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all factual allegations
in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Vasquez v. L.A.
County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). However, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must cite facts
supporting a “plausible” cause of action.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007). A claim has “facial plausibility” when
the party seeking relief “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, 672 (2009)
(internal quotations omitted). “[C]onclusory
allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat
an otherwise proper motion to dismiss.”
Vasquez, 487 F.3d at 1249 (internal quotations
omitted). “Dismissal for failure to state a claim is
appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that the
non-moving party can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim
alleges a civil rights claim against the individual officers
for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
(Dkt. No. 23 at 14-16.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
seizure and Fourteenth Amendment right to (1) manage the
care, custody, and control of his child, (2) due process, and
(3) equal protection. (Id.)
Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and
seizures. In his initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged the
officers violated his Fourth Amendment right against an
unreasonable search based on his assertion that his arrest
was unreasonable. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.) In his amended
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the officers placed K.P. in
the custody of Ms. Wilkinson which constituted an
unreasonable seizure. (Dkt. No. 23 at 16.) However, Plaintiff
was granted leave to amend his original complaint, not to add
new claims. Therefore, the Court will not consider
Plaintiff's new Fourth Amendment claim. Regardless,
Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts nor does he cite
any case law to support his ...