United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR FILE AMENDED
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.
District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights matter to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard
Creatura under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (1)(B)
and Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, 3, and 4.
See Dkt. 2. The matter is before the Court on
plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. 4.
brings claims against “Sheriff Joe Noele, ”
“Super[i]ntend[e]nt David Fortino, ” and
“all jail staff, Jefferson County Sheriff[']s
Office, ” although the precise basis for his claims is
unclear. Plaintiff fails to identify any particular acts or
omissions by these three defendants that caused
constitutional deprivations. Instead, he relies on citations
to swathes of Washington laws or to federal regulations,
which do not create a private right of action. Thus, having
screened plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court declines to serve the complaint because it
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
However, the Court provides plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint on or before October 30,
2019 to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
who is pro se, proceeds in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff states that he was a
client in Western State Hospital until September 2, 2019 and
brings claims related to an incident before that, when he was
arrested. See Dkt. 4, at 6. He indicates that he is
a pretrial detainee, who is “[c]ivilly
committed[.]” Dkt. 4, at 2.
the factual allegations in plaintiff's proposed complaint
are somewhat unclear, it appears that he seeks to bring
claims for violation of his right to a speedy trial
(see Dkt. 4, at 7) and for mistreatment by those who
arrested him-namely failure to provide him with medical
attention for injuries that he had when he was arrested.
See Dkt. 4, at 6.
§ 1915A Screening
plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and against
governmental entities and officers, his complaint is subject
to screening before service, meaning that if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief, this Court may dismiss the complaint. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). This Court will offer plaintiff an opportunity to
amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies unless it is
clear that amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
plaintiff's complaint does not survive screening because
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
as set forth below. However, the Court will offer plaintiff
an opportunity to amend his complaint to correct the
deficiencies identified in this Order.
Failure to State a Claim
complaint must contain a “‘short and plain
statement of the claim[s] showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests[.]'” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although
factual allegations need not be detailed, plaintiff must go
beyond mere “labels and conclusions” and cannot
rely on a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action[.]” Id. Plaintiff cannot
simply make “an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
complaint must set forth the elements of the legal claim-that
is, the law underlying the claims-and factual allegations
that are sufficient that, taken as true, they establish how
defendants acted unlawfully. See Id. at 678-79.
in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish two basic
elements-(1) “the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States” and (2) how
“the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.” West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).