United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge
AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION
is a pretrial detainee at Snohomish County Corrections.
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff
submitted a proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint. (Dkt. 6.) To sustain a § 1983 claim,
plaintiff must show (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 or federal law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Crumpton v.
Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff
named the State of Washington as defendant and listed a
number of different issues relating to, inter alia,
conditions of confinement, housing and/or classification
status, and medical treatment.
August 5, 2019, the Court issued an Order outlining
deficiencies in the complaint and granting plaintiff leave to
amend. (Dkt. 7.) The Court directed plaintiff to file an
amended complaint within thirty days of the Court's
Order. The Court noted it may recommend dismissal if an
amended complaint was not timely filed. To date, plaintiff
has not submitted an amended complaint or otherwise responded
to the Court's Order. The Court now recommends dismissal.
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 of 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. In
this case, plaintiff failed 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, and specific, plausible facts supporting his claims.
also failed to name a proper defendant or to connect a
defendant to the allegations in the complaint. Neither
states, nor entities that are arms of the state, are
“persons” for purposes of § 1983.
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365-66 (1990);
Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993)
(en banc); Hontz v. State, 105 Wn.2d 302, 310, 714
P.2d 1176 (1986). Because plaintiff names only the State of
Washington, he fails to identify a viable defendant.
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA):
“No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or
other correctional facility until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). The exhaustion requirement “applies to
all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve
general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether
they allege excessive force or some other wrong.”
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). It
applies to both prisoners and pretrial detainees. See,
e.g., Panaro v. City of North Las Vegas, 432
F.3d 949, 950, 952 (9th Cir. 2005). Exhaustion is mandatory.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211-12 (2007). It must
be “proper” and include compliance with a
prison's grievance procedures. Id. at 218;
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93 (2006).
Plaintiff was directed to and did not address in an amended
complaint the question of whether he had properly exhausted
his administrative remedies as to his various claims.
plaintiff failed to correct any of the above-described
deficiencies, the Court recommends his proposed complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies
this Report and Recommendation.
to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed
with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit
within twenty-one (21) days of the date on
which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to
file objections within the specified time may affect your
right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration
on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third
Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be
filed within fourteen (14) days after