United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO JOIN ANOTHER
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss of
Defendants Social Justice Fund, Youth Undoing Institutional
Racism, and Ending the Prison Industrial Complex, Dkt # 7,
and Plaintiff's “Motion to Join Another
Defendant.” Dkt. # 12. Defendants claim that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and therefore pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6),
Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff seeks
to join another defendant and to amend her complaint. After
reviewing the pleadings by both parties and the remainder of
the record, the Court finds as follows.
is a grant writer for Warren & Cato Consulting Firm. Dkt.
# 1-1 ¶ 1. The company is a “grass-root innovative
company, ” id., with a mission to meet
“human, educational, environmental, and community
public safety” needs. Id. Defendants are three
separate not-for-profit organizations located in Seattle,
Washington: Social Justice Fund N.W. (Social Justice), Youth
Undoing Institutional Racism (YUIR), and Ending the Prison
Industrial Complex (EPIC). Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.
Since 2012 YUIR has been fighting the construction of the new
King County detention center. Dkt. # 7, Exhibit A. Through
these efforts, EPIC was launched, which led to the No New
Youth Jail Campaign. Id. YUIR and EPIC are projects
that operate under the umbrella of two other organizations,
the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond and the
American Friends Service Committee, all of which have
advocated against a youth detention center. Id.
2015, EPIC worked with the City of Seattle to create the
“EPIC Zero Detention Project.” Id. The
Project would provide grant funding to communities that are
most targeted by mass incarceration. Id. EPIC
planned on distributing $500, 000 in grants to
community-based and community-led organizations that work to
end youth imprisonment. Id. In their request for
proposals (RFP), id., EPIC stated that it and Social
Justice would make the decisions about where they would
distribute the grants, and that the grants would be
administered by Social Justice. Id. The maximum
amount that an proposal could receive was $100, 000.
Id. The RFP then gave examples of project ideas,
general guidelines on the type of proposal EPIC and Social
Justice were looking for, the types of organizations that
should apply, and the types of organizations that would
receive special consideration. Id. The deadline to
apply was October 3, 2016. Id.
technical difficulties, Social Justice and EPIC extended the
application deadline to October 7, 2016. Dkt. # 1-1, ¶
9. Plaintiff submitted her application that day. Id.
at ¶ 8. On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff received a
confirmation email from Social Justice stating that her
application had been received and was pending review.
Id. at ¶ 9. Social Justice told Plaintiff that
they would be in touch within two weeks to confirm whether
Plaintiff's application was complete and eligible for
funding. Id. Social Justice also called Plaintiff
that day to verify the amount that Plaintiff had requested
because some proposals were mismatched with the funding
requests. Id. at ¶ 10. After receiving the
email and phone call from Social Justice, Plaintiff then
emailed Social Justice to ask about her submissions, but she
did not receive a response. Id. at ¶ 11.
Plaintiff then sent three other emails, on October 18 and 25
and November 2, to confirm that any mix-up involving her
submissions had been cleared up. Id. at ¶¶
12-14. Defendants did not respond to any of these emails.
November 8, 2016, Social Justice notified Plaintiff that none
of her projects would receive funding. Id. at ¶
15. The next day Plaintiff emailed Social Justice claiming
that Social Justice had violated the Washington Law Against
Discrimination, the Washington Whistleblower Protection Act,
and the Uniform Disciplinary Act for Health Professionals.
Id. at ¶ 16. Social Justice did not respond,
nor did they respond to the second email sent by Plaintiff on
November 10, 2016. Id. at ¶ 17. On December 8,
2016 Plaintiff emailed Social Justice and asked them several
questions regarding their ethical and professional
obligations. Id. at ¶ 19. While Social Justice
did not respond to the questions in this email, Burke
Stansbury from Social Justice agreed to meet with Plaintiff.
Id. at ¶ 20. At the meeting on December 28,
2016, Mr. Stansbury allegedly explained to Plaintiff that
this was the first time they had ever done a project like
this, that the process suffered from some issues, and that it
was too late for the organization to redistribute any funds.
Id. at ¶ 21. Mr. Stansbury allegedly told
Plaintiff that he and the Senior Project Manager would
contact Plaintiff about a way to potentially remedy the
issue. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she was never
January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action in state court.
Dkt. # 1-1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Social Justice,
YUIR, and EPIC have violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, the Washington State
Constitution, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, the Washington
Law Against Discrimination, the Washington Whistleblower
Protection Act, and Washington's Uniform Disciplinary Act
for Health Professionals. Id. at ¶¶ 24-28.
Defendants timely removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b). Dkt. # 1. Defendants then moved to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), Dkt. # 7, and Plaintiff filed a motion to join
another defendant. Dkt. # 12.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint
for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 8(a)(2). When deciding
a motion to dismiss, the court accepts allegations in the
complaint as true and must construe those allegations in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court does not
however, need to accept any legal conclusions as true.
order for a party to survive a motion to dismiss, the
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. “This standard does not rise to the level of a
probability requirement, but it demands ‘more than
sheer possibility that the defendant has acted
unlawfully.'” Landers v. Quality Commc'ns,
Inc, 771 F.3d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “While a complaint
attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of [her] entitlement to
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation fo the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Violations of the United ...