United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court after its review of
Plaintiff's second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 16).
Plaintiff also has a motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 13)
pending before the Court.
September 29, 2017, the Court granted Defendants King County
and City of Seattle's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's
claims without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff 30 days to
file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 15 at 1.) On October 31,
2017, Plaintiff filed both a motion for an extension of time
to file her complaint (Dkt. No. 14) and a motion to appoint
counsel (Dkt. No. 13). The Court granted Plaintiff's
motion for an extension of time and allowed her an additional
30 days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) The
Court did not consider appointing counsel because it had
previously dismissed Plaintiff's claims without
prejudice. (Id.) In accordance with the Court's
order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 1,
2017. (Dkt. No. 16).
Court previously granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
because Plainitff failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. (Dkt. No. 10 at 4.) The Court noted that
while Plaintiff's claims were legally cognizable, they
were not facially plausible. (Id. at 3-4.) Having
reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court again
finds that she has failed to sufficiently plead facts that
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Dkt. No. 16 at 5.) She states that “every
pretrial detainee right was violated pro se as well,
violations of laws, statutes, rights, policies,
procedures.” (Id.) She alleges that the events
giving rise to her claim occurred in “KC SEA LOC @ DAJD
SEA, KC Courts, WSH; COS loc @ SMC Courts, @ Home, @ City
Streets - multiple.” (Id. at 6.) Lister
alleges that she “was victim of DV, Police Brutality by
SPD, Injured Abused in KC Jail, beat in KC Jail, Injured,
Raped @ WSH subjected to every horrible illegal act due to
attached a supplemental document to her complaint that lists
over a hundred individuals as “additional
defendants.” (Id. at 10.) These individuals
are variously listed by title and surname-for example
“Mr. J. JELLEN (ACTING SEARGEANT)-or simply by
surname-for example, “FARRINGTON.” (Id.
at 11.) Plaintiff does not explain how the majority of these
individuals violated her constitutional rights or caused her
harm. (Id. 10-14.) For other individuals, including
Seattle Police Chiefs John Diaz and Kathleen O'Toole,
Plaintiff makes several allegations that lack any
specificity. (See id. at 18) (“Deliberate
indifference, willful negligence knowing about issues with
officers use of force, problems & dishonesty, failure to
investigate, failure to act, failure to protect . . .
.”) Plaintiff's allegations against these
individual Defendants vary widely by time and location.
(See generally Dkt. No. 16 at 10-20.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), requires that a pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain: “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief . . . .” Rule 8(a) “requires a
complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citing Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 (1957)). “[T]he pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
672 (2009). In addition, to state a valid § 1983 claim,
a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury
as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant, and she
must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the
conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.
362, 371-72 (1976).
amended complaint does not contain a short and plain
statement that would give Defendants fair notice of the
grounds upon which her claims rests. In fact, the opposite is
true. Plaintiff lists as Defendants “City of Seattle,
Seattle Police Dept., King County DAD, and King County et
al.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) As mentioned above,
Plaintiff additionally included over 100 individuals as
defendants, with varying degrees of identification or
allegations regarding how they violated her constitutional
rights. (See Id. at 10-20.) It is not clear from the
complaint who these individuals work for or how they
specifically caused the harm Plaintiff alleges.
Plaintiff's amorphous allegations are not sufficient to
state a valid § 1983 claim against the Defendants. Even
under the Ninth Circuit's directive that pro se
complaints be construed liberally, the Court does not find
that Plaintiff has plead a claim for which relief can be
granted. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice and
without further opportunity to amend. The Court does not
afford an additional opportunity to amend because it already
allowed Plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff's
motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED. The Clerk
is DIRECTED to close this case.
 As mentioned in the Court's prior
order to dismiss, the Seattle Police Department and King
County ADA are not entities that can be sued under 28 U.S.C.