United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge.
case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule MJR 3
and 4. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's
filing of an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and proposed complaint. Dkt. 1, 2.
an inmate at Washington State Penitentiary, has filed a
prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against defendants Governor Jay Inslee and 12 other
individuals, claiming they have violated his rights under the
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. 1, pp. 9-27. He requests damages,
a vacation of his judgment of conviction, and other
injunctive relief. Dkt. 1, p. 28.
Court found Plaintiff's complaint to be deficient and
ordered that he amend it or otherwise show cause why it
should not be dismissed. Dkt. 12. Plaintiff has done neither.
Instead, he has filed a response that does not cure the
deficiencies in the complaint or explain how it states a
claim for relief. Dkt. 14. The complaint continues to be
deficient for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior
order, Dkt. 12. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. The undersigned recommends
the action be dismissed without prejudice and that
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2)
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or
(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
The fact that a prisoner pays the filing fee is no barrier to
a court, when dismissing the case as frivolous, directing
that the dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“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 (1957)). To
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff
must include more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. A claim upon which the
court can grant relief has facial plausibility; a claim has
“facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
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).
person named as a defendant was a supervisory official,
plaintiff must either state that the defendant personally
participated in the constitutional deprivation, or plaintiff
must state, if he can do so in good faith, that the defendant
was aware of the similar widespread abuses, but with
deliberate indifference to plaintiff's constitutional
rights, failed to take action to prevent further harm to
plaintiff and also state facts to support this claim. See
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
must repeat this process for each person he names as a
defendant. 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
Plaintiff appears to assert claims relating to improprieties
at his sentencing hearing, prosecutorial misconduct including
withholding and destruction of evidence, ineffective
assistance of counsel, and improper proceedings before the
Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. Dkt. 1.
Court's prior order, it advised Plaintiff that his
proposed complaint fails to allege facts from which it may be
inferred that any of the named defendants violated his
constitutional rights. Dkt. 12. The Court informed Plaintiff
that he must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim, ” stating how specific acts or omissions by
specific defendants caused violations of his constitutional
rights. Id. It further informed Plaintiff that many
of his claims are more appropriate for a habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 than a civil rights
claim under § 1983, as they apparently relate to the
validity of his conviction and sentence, not his conditions
of confinement, and because Plaintiff's conviction or
sentence has not been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or
impugned. Dkt. 12 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 489 (1994)).
the Court informed Plaintiff that claims which accrued before
September 22, 2014, are time-barred under the applicable
statute of limitations. Dkt. 12 (citing Rose v.
Rinaldi, 654 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1981); RCW 4.16.080(2)).
It noted that many of Plaintiff's claims appear to be
untimely, as they depend entirely on events that occurred
between 2003 and 2005, Dkt. 1, pp. 9-22, or on events that
occurred in 2012, Dkt. 1, pp. 22-25. It advised Plaintiff
that he must show cause why these claims should not be
dismissed. Dkt. 12.
response to the Court's order does not address any of
these deficiencies. Dkt. 14. Instead, Plaintiff again appears
to assert that various proceedings in state court violated
Plaintiff's right to due process. Plaintiff does not
address any of the deficiencies this Court identified in the
Order to Show Cause or Amend the Complaint: The response
contains no factual allegations that, if true, would support
a finding that any of Plaintiff's constitutional rights
were violated. It names only one defendant, Governor Inslee,
and it does not explain how he personally caused ...