United States District Court, W.D. Washington
ANTHONY D. HILL, Plaintiff,
CITY OF DES MOINES, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court are pro se Plaintiff Anthony D. Hill's
amended complaint against Defendants City of Des Moines
(“the City”), South Correctional Entity
(“SCORE”), and “Roving Guard 9[:]05 [p.m.]
S-6 SCORE system” (“Roving Guard”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) (FAC (Dkt. # 24))
and four motions for various forms of relief (1st Mot. (Dkt.
# 20); 2d Mot. (Dkt. # 21); 3d Mot. (Dkt. # 22); 4th Mot.
(Dkt. # 25)). Mr. Hill is proceeding in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (IFP Order (Dkt. # 3).)
The court has considered Mr. Hill's amended complaint and
filings, the relevant portions of the record, and the
applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DISMISSES Mr.
Hill's amended complaint with leave to amend and DENIES
his pending motions.
January 23, 2017, Mr. Hill filed a motion for leave to
proceed IFP (IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1)) along with a proposed
complaint (Prop. Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1)). On January 27, 2017,
Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue granted Mr. Hill's IFP
motion, and Mr. Hill's complaint was filed on the
court's docket the same day. (IFP Order; Compl. (Dkt. #
4).) In his order, Magistrate Judge Donohue recommended that
the court review Mr. Hill's complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (IFP Order at 1.)
court undertook the recommended review and determined that
Mr. Hill's complaint was frivolous and failed to state a
claim. (See 2/3/17 Order (Dkt. # 11) at 3.) Although
Mr. Hill's complaint was difficult to follow, the court
determined that Mr. Hill's allegations appeared to stem
from Mr. Hill's eviction from a hotel where he had been
renting a room. (See Id. at 2.) The court concluded
that Mr. Hill had not stated a basis for the court's
subject matter jurisdiction and that the court could not
determine what claims Mr. Hill attempted to assert or
identify facts in Mr. Hill's complaint from which the
court could reasonably infer then-defendant Value Inn
22246's (“Value Inn”) liability to Mr. Hill.
(Id. at 4-5.) For these reasons, the court dismissed
Mr. Hill's complaint with leave to amend. (Id.
February 16, 2017, Mr. Hill moved to extend the deadline to
file his amended complaint and for the appointment of
counsel. (See MTE (Dkt. # 16); MAC (Dkt. # 17).) The
court declined to appoint counsel, granted Mr. Hill's
request for an extension, and ordered that any amended
complaint be filed no later than March 9, 2017. (2/23/17 Order
(Dkt. # 18) at 2.) On March 7, 2017, Mr. Hill filed an
amended complaint. (See FAC.) The court now
evaluates Mr. Hill's amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and his four pending motions.
Mr. Hill's Amended Complaint
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires a district court to
dismiss a claim filed IFP if the court determines “at
any time” that the action (1) is frivolous or
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim, or (3) seeks relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concludes that Mr.
Hill's amended complaint fails to state a claim. However,
the court cannot conclude that it is impossible for Mr. Hill
to cure the defects in his amended complaint and grants him
leave to amend the complaint in the manner described below.
Hill's amended complaint names the City of Des Moines,
SCORE jail, and Roving Guard as defendants. (See FAC
at 1.) Mr. Hill's allegations are once again difficult to
follow, but Mr. Hill appears to allege that after he
attempted to retrieve his property from Value Inn-the
defendant named in Mr. Hill's original complaint-City of
Des Moines police officers arrested Mr. Hill for trespass
(id. at 2, 4) and that he is currently being held in
King County's SCORE jail facility (see generally
id.). He alleges that he “feel[s his] life is in
jeopardy and believe[s that he is] being held illegally . . .
and threatened daily.” (Id. at 1.) He further
asserts that he has “written over 70 grievances”
while at SCORE and that he was “recently falsely
arrested.” (Id. at 2.) As an exhibit to his
complaint, Mr. Hill includes a declaration apparently from
another SCORE inmate. (Id. at 3 (“Ex.
A-1”).) That declaration includes allegations that
SCORE is withholding Mr. Hill's HIV medication.
construing these allegations, it appears that Mr. Hill
attempts to assert two claims against Defendants: (1) false
arrest, and (2) deliberate indifference to Mr. Hill's
medical needs. Mr. Hill's factual allegations, however,
are insufficient to ...