United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
DAVID A. MOORE, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge.
an inmate at the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF),
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
matter. The Court, having reviewed both the proposed
complaint (Dkt. 4-1) and a statement submitted after the
Court issued an Order providing plaintiff an opportunity to
amend (Dkt. 10), recommends this matter be DISMISSED.
filed an “[Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)]
petition for writ of habeas corpus, under and through the
[ADA] and its applicable amendments, including all the
aforementioned laws, statutes, and rights in this
court.” (Dkt. 4-1 at 4.) He alleges he is disabled and
mobility-impaired, and that his walking cane was taken away
on January 9, 2018 after a “fabricated ‘custodial
assault' charge.” (Id. at 3-4.) He
contends he has since been forced to crawl to access services
within and beyond KCCF, including, but not limited to, meals,
medical services, showers, disciplinary hearings, Islamic
faith services, and court. Plaintiff also asserts his
innocence and sought relief in his currently pending criminal
matter. (Id. at 4, 7.)
caption of the complaint, plaintiff identified as defendants
the United States and King County and “its entities and
affiliates, ” listed as: King County Superior Court and
its “Doe” employees; King County Jail (or KCCF);
King County Ombudsman Office(s); King County Office of Public
Defense; King County Risk Management Office(s); King County
Civil Rights Office(s); King County Sheriff Office(s) (Metro
and Sound Transit Divisions); King County Metro and Sound
Transit; King County Public Health Department; Seattle Police
Department; Seattle Civil Rights Office(s); Harborview
Medical Hospital(s); Securus Technologies; Federal Public
Defender Office(s); and federal judges “Tsuchida”
and “Coughenour.” (Id. at 1.) Within the
body of the complaint, plaintiff attributed the alleged acts
and omissions to the United States, King County, and KCCF.
Plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel, filed a
motion for emergency relief through a temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction, and provided “Judicial
Notice” as to the identities of over 100 Doe
defendants. (Dkts. 4-1, 5 & 6.)
Order dated April 5, 2019, the Court identified a number of
deficiencies in the pleading and declined to serve the
proposed complaint/petition or to direct that an answer be
filed. (Dkt. 9.) The Court also denied the request for
appointment of counsel and declined to rule on the motion for
emergency relief in the absence of a serviceable complaint.
The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend, if possible,
within thirty days of the date of the Court's Order.
9, 2019, plaintiff submitted a statement to the Court. (Dkt.
10.) The statement indicates the issues identified in the
proposed complaint remain ongoing and a desire to amend by
adding parties and allegations, including allegations against
this Court and its Judges. Plaintiff did not submit an
amended pleading, explain proposed amendments with
specificity or clarity, or respond to the deficiencies
identified in the Court's Order. The statement is in
large part unintelligible. (See, e.g., id.
at 2 (“. . . Compounding through your ‘Tsuchida
and his “Doe” co-staff' res judicata
infliction upon me in 2017 while I was ‘rottening'
then fully reveals and solidifies, supports these ongoing
attacks from his (Tsuchida) and co-staff (Coughenour,
Theiler, etc.) - for their entity ‘county' friends,
in blatant connivance with them, as I am being suffered with
pure racist suspect discriminatory classifications and
outrageous (ad-seg) governmental misconduct attacks.”))
having reviewed both the proposed pleading and
plaintiff's statement, the Court concludes this matter
should be dismissed for the reasons set forth below.
reflected above, plaintiff sought both habeas relief and
relief under the ADA and other statutes. In seeking habeas
relief, plaintiff pointed to his ongoing criminal proceeding
in King County Superior Court Cause Number 16-1-02294-1-SEA.
Both at the time of the Court's initial review and
following receipt of plaintiff's statement, the docket in
plaintiff's criminal proceeding reveals a trial
continuation as of November 2, 2018. See
https://dw.courts.wa.gov. Plaintiff has therefore not yet
been convicted or sentenced in relation to his criminal
matter. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court may
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus only
from an individual in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
state court. This Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in
ongoing state court proceedings. See Demos v. U.S. Dist.
Court for E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th
Cir. 1991) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a federal
court “lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
to a state court[, ]” and accordingly, writs requesting
that a federal court “compel a state court to take or
refrain from some action, ” are “frivolous as a
matter of law.”) Because no judgment has been entered
against plaintiff, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
a habeas petition and this matter is not construed as seeking
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (a)(2) requires that a pleading
contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
plaintiff is entitled to relief. “Each allegation must
be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (d)(1).
The complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claim
and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although it need not
provide detailed factual allegations, the complaint must give
rise to something more than mere speculation that plaintiff
has a right to relief. Id. Plaintiff must provide
more than conclusory allegations; he must set forth specific,
plausible facts to support his claims. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-83 (2009). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. at 678.
here fails to provide a short and plain statement of his
claims showing he is entitled to relief, fair notice of his
claims and the grounds upon which they rest, or specific,
plausible facts supporting those claims. His complaint is
further deficient in numerous other respects.