Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill v. City of Des Moines

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

March 23, 2017

ANTHONY D. HILL, Plaintiff,




         Before 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.


         On 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.)

         The 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. at 1.)

         On 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.[1] (2/23/17 Order (Dkt. # 18) at 2.) On March 7, 2017, Mr. Hill filed an amended complaint.[2] (See FAC.) The court now evaluates Mr. Hill's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and his four pending motions.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Mr. Hill's Amended Complaint

         Title 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.

         1. The Allegations

         Mr. Hill's amended complaint names the City of Des Moines, SCORE jail, and Roving Guard as defendants.[3] (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. (Id.)

         2. The Claims

         Liberally 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.