Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 4, 2019

DAVID A. MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.)

         In the 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.)

         By 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.

         On May 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.”))

         Now, having reviewed both the proposed pleading and plaintiff's statement, the Court concludes this matter should be dismissed for the reasons set forth below.

         DISCUSSION

         As 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 habeas relief.[1]

         Federal 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         A. ADA/Reha ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.