United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ROBERT H. SMITH, Plaintiff,
RYAN W. PHILLIPS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE
Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge.
Robert Smith is in federal custody and is currently confined
at Federal Detention Center (FDC) SeaTac. He has submitted to
this Court for filing a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court, having reviewed
plaintiff's complaint, hereby finds and ORDERS as
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Snohomish County
Sheriff's Deputies used excessive force against him, and
issued repeated threats, in effectuating his arrest in July
2016. (See Dkt. 1-1 at 4-5.) Plaintiff also asserts
that one deputy became physically aggressive while
questioning him at the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office
South Precinct following his arrest. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff contends that the following individuals were either
present or involved in the incidents in question: Snohomish
County Sheriff's Deputies Ryan W. Phillips, Robert
Cracchilo, Lee Malkow, J. Seth, and Brian Emery. (Dkt. 1-1 at
7.) Plaintiff requests that the deputies involved in this
lawsuit be fired, and he seeks damages. (Id. at 8.)
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that in order for a pleading to state a claim for relief it
must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
a demand for the relief sought. The statement of the claim
must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice
of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957). The factual allegations of a complaint must be
“enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In addition, a
complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
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).
To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts
showing how individually named defendants caused, or
personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the
complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981).
Court declines to order that plaintiff's complaint be
served on defendants because the complaint fails to meet the
pleading requirements set forth above. Specifically,
plaintiff fails to identify the constitutional rights that
were violated by the conduct of each defendant, and he fails
to set forth facts demonstrating that each defendant
personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the
complaint. Plaintiff also fails to make clear who the
intended defendants are as he names different individuals in
different sections of his complaint. (See Dkt. 1-1
at 1, 2, 7.)
order to proceed with this action, plaintiff must clearly
identify all intended defendants in both the caption of the
complaint and in Part III of the complaint (Parties to this
Complaint). In addition, plaintiff must include each intended
defendant in his Statement of Claim, he must identify the
constitutional right he believes was violated by each
defendant, and he must set forth specific facts demonstrating
that each defendant personally participated in causing him
harm of federal constitutional dimension.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the above
noted deficiencies within thirty (30)
days of the date on which this Order is signed.
The amended complaint must carry the same case number as this
one. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the Court will
recommend that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
is advised that an amended pleading operates as a
complete substitute for an original pleading.
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
Cir.) (citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner
& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as
amended), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Thus,
any amended complaint must clearly identify each defendant,
the constitutional claim(s) asserted against each defendant,
the specific facts which plaintiffs believe support each
federal constitutional claim, and the specific relief
Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms so
that he may file an amended complaint. The Clerk is further
directed to send copies of this Order ...