United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND COMPLAINT
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.
Fraser Rotchford, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional
rights were violated when defendant Peninsula Regional
Network Ombudsmen failed to reply to him. However, plaintiff
has not alleged facts demonstrating that he suffered a
violation of his rights protected by the Constitution or
federal statute, or that the violation was caused by a person
acting under the color of state or federal law. Having
reviewed and screened plaintiffs complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court declines to serve plaintiffs
complaint because plaintiff has yet to plead sufficient facts
to demonstrate that defendant violated his constitutional
rights. However, the Court provides plaintiff leave to file
an amended pleading by May 23, 2019, to cure the deficiencies
complaint, plaintiff, who is currently housed at Clallam
County Jail, alleges that defendant received two letters and
a phone call and failed to reply. Dkt. 7 at 3. Plaintiff
alleges that he attempted to use an "inmate phone
regarding help needed to mediate an issue[.]"
Id. Plaintiff alleges that non-party "Olycap
Olympic Community Action Plan" is responsible for
disbursing funds for alcohol treatment evaluations and
refused to procure funds for plaintiff to "Believe in
Recovery," the agency which administers evaluations.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges nonparty Behavioral
Health, a mental health agency, violated state law when state
psychiatrists failed to show credentials. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that "Olycap" got a restraining
order against him after he reported it was knowingly
subsidizing child prostitution in the Philippines.
seeks $750, 000 and that defendant be required to take calls
from jails within its area. Id. at 4.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"),
the Court is required to screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must "dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief maybe granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Id.
at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege that: (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
law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th
Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is
therefore to identify the specific constitutional right
allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S.
266, 271 (1994). To satisfy the second step, 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).
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 plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Con ley 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).
unclear from plaintiffs complaint who defendant is or how
defendant violated plaintiffs constitutional rights or
damaged him in some way. Plaintiff appears to allege that
defendant did not reply to him, but the details of plaintiff
s interaction with defendant are not clear. Rather, plaintiff
complains that defendant failed to respond to him and also
asserts various complaints against non-parties related to his
addiction and recovery. At this time, the Court cannot
discern any actionable claim against defendant over which it
has jurisdiction. Even construing plaintiff's amended
complaint liberally, plaintiffs complaint does not satisfy
the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, by setting forth a short and plain statement of
plaintiff s claims.
the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve
plaintiffs complaint. If plaintiff intends to pursue a §
1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file an
amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he must
write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the
constitutional right plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the
name or names of the person or persons who violated the
right; (3) exactly what each individual or entity did or
failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of each
individual or entity is connected to the violation of
plaintiffs constitutional rights; and (5) what specific
injury plaintiff suffered because of the individuals'
conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72,
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original complaint, and not as a supplement. An amended
complaint supersedes all previous complaints. Forsyth v.
Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997)
overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the
amended complaint must be complete in itself and all facts
and causes of action alleged in the original complaint that
are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. The Court will screen the
amended complaint to determine whether it contains factual
allegations linking each defendant to the alleged violations
of plaintiff s rights. The Court will not authorize service
of the amended complaint on any defendant who is not
specifically linked to a violation of plaintiff s rights.
plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or before May
23, 2019, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms for
filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for
service. The Clerk is further directed to send copies ...