United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND COMPLAINT AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
RICHARD CREATURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter has been referred to this Court pursuant to General
Order 02-19. Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 13), plaintiff's Motion for Federal
Court to Intervene in State Matters (Dkt. 14), and
plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendant (Dkt. 17). Plaintiff
initially filed this § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(IFP) on April 16, 2019. Dkt 1. After several deficiencies,
plaintiff's IFP was granted in part on May 28, 2019. Dkt.
11. The Court has not yet directed service upon defendants.
is granted leave to amend his complaint, but not to add the
United States as a defendant. Plaintiff has stated his intent
to name the United States as a defendant and the Court notes
that the United States is not a proper defendant in this
§1983 action. Nonetheless, plaintiff may add other
defendants, if necessary and appropriate, if he chooses to
amend his complaint. Plaintiff's motion to appoint
counsel is denied because plaintiff is granted leave to amend
his complaint and the Court cannot determine at this stage
whether or not plaintiff's claim is likely to succeed on
the merits. Plaintiff's motion for this Court to
intervene in state matters is denied due to Younger
is currently housed at Monroe Correctional Complex.
See Dkt. 12, p. 2. Plaintiff begins his complaint
with a lengthy factual discussion of a brain injury he
suffered at age sixteen and the treatment he received.
See Dkt. 12, p.3-4 (“This is a 15 year long
one paragraph complaint regarding deliberate indifference
shown by the state of Washington to information essential to
providing constitutional services.”). Plaintiff appears
to allege that due to inadequate medical treatment
“[t]he State of Washington is liable for everyday after
[the date of the car accident] that I have lived in violation
of the right to pursue happiness.” Dkt. 12, p. 6. He
also appears to allege that he has not received adequate
treatment for his condition while incarcerated. See
Dkt. 12, p. 9-11 (citing numerous instances of plaintiff
allegedly being denied medical treatment).
request for relief includes monetary damages, expungement of
his criminal record, release from confinement, and medical
treatment. See Dkt. 12, p. 11.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, at least three
elements must be met: (1) defendant must be a person acting
under the color of state law; (2) the person's conduct
must have deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United
States, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, (1981)
(overruled in part on other grounds); Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, (1986); and (3)
causation. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ.
v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 286-87, (1977); Flores v.
Pierce, 617 F.2d 1386, 1390-91 (9th Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 875, (1980).
the 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 may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren
v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
complaint is difficult to follow and contains over ten pages
of background information related to plaintiff's injury.
See Dkts. 12, p. 3-13, 12-1. The Court is required
to liberally construe pro se documents. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Nonetheless, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
“Each allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d).
the background information plaintiff submitted may be
evidence in support of plaintiff's complaint, “the
Court cannot glean what claims for relief might lay hidden in
the narration provided by plaintiff and it is plaintiff's
responsibility to make each claim clear and provide only a
short statement of facts supporting [each] claim, ”
Henderson v. Scott, 2005 WL 1335220, at *1
(E.D. Cal. May 4, 2005). Plaintiff also alleges Fifth and
Eighth Amendment violations, but it is unclear what the
injuries from these violations are, and who committed the
alleged harm. See Dkt. 12, p. 12.
appears to direct his complaint against the State of
Washington. See Dkt. 12, p. 6. Neither states nor
state officials acting in their official capacities are
“persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989). This rule applies equally to state agencies.
See Kaimowitz v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of
Ill., 951 F.2d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 1991); Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1991). However,
State employees may be defendants in a § 1983 suit under
certain circumstances. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10 (1989) (State
officials sued in their official capacity for injunctive-that
is, non-monetary-relief are persons for purposes of §
1983). In a similar fashion, state official sued in their
personal capacity are “persons” for purposes of
§ 1983. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27
it is not clear from plaintiff's complaint who the
claimed defendant(s) might be or the nature of alleged
claim(s). Plaintiff must allege facts showing how a defendant
caused or personally participated in causing the harm alleged