United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
BRODERICK J. BOYD, Plaintiff,
MARK THOMAS QUIGLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND THE COMPLAINT
THERESA L. FRICKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's filing of a
proposed civil rights complaint.Plaintiff has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of the
deficiencies in the complaint discussed herein, however, the
undersigned will not direct service of the complaint at this
time. Plaintiff, though, will be provided the opportunity by
January 26, 2018 to show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed or to file an amended
is incarcerated at Pierce County Jail. He sues his assigned
defense attorney Mark Thomas Quigley and the Department of
Assigned Counsel (DAC). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff claims his Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated.
Dkt. 1, at 1. He alleges that Mr. Quigley engaged in a range
of inappropriate behaviors outside the bounds of defense
counsel's professional role. Dkt. 1, at 2-3. He alleges
this behavior has left him “emotionally
distraught.” Dkt. 1, at 3. He also alleges that the DAC
“doesn't have safety mechanisms in placed [sic] to
safeguard the legal well being of impoverished clients from
dysfunctional, well educated attorneys with socio-pathic
tendencies.” Dkt. 1, at 2. He asks for a no-contact
order, damages, removal of Mr. Quigley as counsel, and his
removal from DAC. Dkt. 1, at 3.
Court declines to serve the complaint because it contains
fatal deficiencies that, if not addressed, will lead to a
recommendation of dismissal of the entire action for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
complaint is brought under § 1983. To state a claim
under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing (1)
the conduct about which he complains was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law; and (2) the
conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory
right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th
Cir. 1989). In addition, to state a valid § 1983 claim,
a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as
a result of the conduct of a particular defendant, and he
must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the
conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.
362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Mr.
Quigley or the DAC. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing that a defendant
acted under color of state law. Wood, 879 F.2d at
587. It is well established that court-appointed defense
attorneys like Mr. Quigley are not acting under color of
state law when representing clients and therefore cannot be
sued under § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 317-25 (1981); Miranda v. Clark County,
319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2002).
addition, while Pierce County is a municipality that can be
sued under § 1983, Monell v. New York City Dept. of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), Mr. Boyd
fails to allege 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 the County ratified the unlawful conduct.
Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91. As such, Mr. Boyd's
complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim against Mr.
Quigley or the DAC.
the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve
the complaint. Plaintiff may show cause why his complaint
should not be dismissed or may file an amended complaint to
cure, if possible, the deficiencies noted herein, on
or before January 26, 2018. If an amended complaint
is filed, it must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its
entirety and contain the same case number. Any cause of
action alleged in the original complaint that is not alleged
in the amended complaint is waived. Forsyth v. Humana,
Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled
in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa
Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether
it states a claim for relief cognizable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. If the amended complaint is not timely filed or
fails to adequately address the issues raised herein, the
undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the dismissal will
count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Plaintiff should be aware that a prisoner who brings
three or more civil actions or appeals that are dismissed on
the grounds that they are legally frivolous, malicious, or
fail to state a claim, will be precluded from bringing any
other civil action or appeal in forma pauperis,
“unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for
filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for
service, a copy of ...