United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
DAVID A. MOORE, Plaintiff,
KING COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendant.
ORDER DECLINING SERVICE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge
David Moore, is confined at the King County Jail. Proceeding
pro se, he alleges the Seattle Police attacked him and that
he has been denied him adequate medical care. As defendants,
he names King County Jail, Seattle Police Department, King
County Ombudsman, King County Sheriff's Office, King
County Civil Rights Office, King County Superior Court and
King County Office of Public Defense. Dkt. 1, 5. The Court
DECLINES to serve the complaint. As discussed below, the
complaint is deficient and should be dismissed. However,
because plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court will not dismiss
the complaint but instead GRANTS plaintiff leave to file, by
May 15, 2017, an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies. The Court will recommend dismissal if plaintiff
does not timely file a complaint that cures the deficiencies.
submitted a complaint, Dkt. 1, and a statement of claim, Dkt.
5. In essence, the pleadings allege the following: In January
2010, the Seattle Police attacked him and charged him with
malicious harassment. After his arrest, the police took
plaintiff to the King County Jail. Although he needed
medications for abscessed teeth, the jail refused to provide
plaintiff adequate treatment. In 2010, Superior Court Judge
Sharon Armstrong forced him to go pro so in his criminal case
as punishment revolving around a conflict of interest with
his public defender, SCRAP. At some point in 2010, while the
criminal case was pending, plaintiff was sent to Western
State Hospital. Plaintiff avers he not receive adequate
treatment there. After returning from Western State Hospital,
plaintiff appeared before Superior Court Judge Heavey and
struck a plea deal on the malicious harassment charge.
Plaintiff was released in late 2010 from the King County Jail
after spending 8-10 months in custody. After his release,
plaintiff went to the Public Health Department avers the
medications he received had bad side effects. In January of
2011, plaintiff was admitted to Harborview Medical Center via
the ER. He alleges the hospital did provide adequate medical
Court declines to serve the complaint because it deficient.
If the deficiencies are not cured, the Court will recommend
the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). To state a civil rights
action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that he
suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution
or created by federal statute, and (2) that the violation was
proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or
federal law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418,
1420 (9th Cir. 1991). In other words, plaintiff must describe
who violated his rights, when they violated his rights, and
how this violation caused him harm. Absent such allegations,
the individuals named in the complaint will be dismissed.
King County Jail
seeks to sue the King County County Jail, which is a
governmental agency that normally cannot be sued under §
1983. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990).
The proper defendant is King County, a municipality that can
be sued under § 1983. Monell v. New York City Dept.
of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However,
to pursue a claim against King County, plaintiff must allege
facts setting forth how King County's employees or agents
acted through an official custom, pattern or policy that
permits deliberate indifference to, or violates, his civil
rights or that King County ratified the unlawful conduct.
Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91. Plaintiff must allege
these additional facts or show cause why his claims against
King County Jail should not be dismissed.
King County Judges and Public Defenders
alleges a Superior Court Judge forced him to go pro se due to
a conflict of interest with his public defender.
Plaintiff's allegations appear to involve a situation in
which he disagrees with a judge's determination as to the
status of his counsel. Plaintiff cannot sue for monetary
damages against the judges in his criminal cases because
monetary damages against judges are barred by absolute
judicial immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-12
(1991). Accord Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202,
1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Judges are
absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts
taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.”)
also seeks to sue his public defender. He has not set forth
any facts as to how or why his public defender violated his
rights. Additionally, the a public defender acting in his or
her role as advocate is not considered a state actor for
purposes of bringing suit under § 1983. See Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
alleges police officers attacked him and that the Jail's
medical staff, staff at Western State and staff and the
Public Health Office denied him adequate medical care. He
also names the County Ombudsman and Civil Rights Office,
though it is unclear how or why they violated plaintiff's
rights. The Court cannot serve a complaint on unnamed
parties. To obtain relief against a defendant under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, a plaintiff must prove that a particular named
defendant has caused or personally participated in causing
the deprivation of a particular protected constitutional
right. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981); Sherman v. Yakahi, 549
F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1977).
short, plaintiff must name the individual defendants that he
alleges attacked him, denied him medical care or violated
some other constitutional right. He must also set forth
specific facts showing a causal connection between each
defendant's actions and the harm allegedly suffered by
plaintiff (that is what each defendant did; how the acts