United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DECLINING SERVICE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
A TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff Laris Pete, who is currently confined at the King
County Jail, has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil
rights complaint. Dkt. 1-1. The Court declines to serve the
complaint because it contains fatal deficiencies that, if not
addressed, might lead to a recommendation of dismissal of the
entire action for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. However, because plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, he is granted leave to file an amended
complaint or to show cause why his claim should not be
dismissed by July 21, 2017. Any amended complaint will
operate as a complete substitute for all previously filed
complaints; plaintiff's previous complaint will not be
Pete contends he was falsely accused of assault in the third
degree and a felony violation of a no contact order. Dkt.
1-1. He contends he was accused of barricading himself, his
children, and their mother in their mother's apartment;
and he was tear-gassed. Id. He seeks compensation
for “being splashed all over the news, ” for
being tear-gassed and incarcerated, for having his children
removed and placed in the custody of Child Protective
Services, for losing his housing, for loss of wages, and for
pain and suffering. Id.
sustain a civil rights action under § 1983, a plaintiff
must show (1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by
the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) 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).
King County as Defendant
has named King County as a defendant, but he fails to plead
facts linking the county to any misconduct. If plaintiff
intends to pursue a claim against King County, he must allege
facts setting forth how the 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 v. New York City Dept. of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
complaint fails to state a claim for relief under § 1983
because it fails to identify a single named individual.
Therefore, any amended complaint must include short, plain
statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right
plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the
person who violated the right; (3) exactly what that
individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or
inaction of that person is connected to the violation of his
constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury
plaintiff suffered because of that person's conduct.
See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976)
(emphasis added). Plaintiff must repeat this process for each
person he names as a defendant, including any “John
Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants. If
plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each
named defendant with the specific injury suffered by
plaintiff, the claim against that defendant will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a
defendant or a group of defendants have violated a
constitutional right are not acceptable and will be
is cautioned that any action brought pursuant to § 1983
must name as defendants only persons acting under color of
state or federal law. Crumpton, 947 F.2d at 1420.
Thus, to the extent plaintiff intends to sue any private
media outlets, for example, his claims will also be
Challenge to Ongoing State Criminal Action
is further cautioned that he may not challenge the propriety
of his underlying state criminal proceedings in a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 lawsuit. Federal courts will not intervene in a
pending criminal proceeding absent extraordinary
circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
45, 46 (1971). The Younger abstention doctrine
requires that a district court dismiss a federal action if
state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important
state interests, and (3) afford the plaintiff an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin
Apartment Ass'n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799
(9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Plaintiff's complaint
suggests all of the Younger criteria are present
here: the proceedings appear to be ongoing, involve a
criminal prosecution that implicates important state
interests, and there is nothing to indicate plaintiff cannot
raise in his criminal case the same claims he raises here or
that there is a danger of great and immediate irreparable
harm. It therefore appears that this action would improperly
interfere with the state criminal proceeding.
Exhaustion of ...