United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge
a pro se civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is
currently confined at the Washington Correction Center in
Shelton, Washington. He seeks leave to proceed with this civil
rights action in forma pauperis. Dkt. 4. Plaintiff
identifies the State of Washington, Grant County, Superior
Court, and corrections officers at Grant County Jail âIrwinâ,
âLeslieâ, and âVillarealâ as defendants in this action. Dkt.
1-1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court should: (1)
dismiss plaintiff's claims against the State of
Washington for failure to state a claim; (2) direct that this
case be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington which is the proper venue;
(3) defer ruling on plaintiff's IFP application to allow
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington to rule on that motion.
alleges in his complaint that while in custody at Grant
County Jail on March 3, 2019, another inmate poured dirty mop
bucket water “with urine and poop” under his cell
door. Dkt. 1-1. He alleges he was allowed out of his cell to
get a mop but before he was able to clean his cell was told
to “lock down.” Id.
indicates when he objected to being locked down in an
unsanitary room Officer Irwin grabbed his arm and placed it
behind his back. Id. He alleges that, although he
complied, the officers led him into his flooded cell and
forced him to kneel down in water with hazardous material and
while Officers Irwin and Villareal had both hands
“latched” behind his back, Officer Leslie began
“tazing him with a cattle prong.” Id.
Plaintiff indicates he fell to his knees and Officer Leslie
continued to taze him while he lay face down in the hazardous
alleges he sustained burns to his back and that this event
has caused him heightened paranoia and anxiety. Id.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and for the
corrections officer defendants to be “fired.”
Court is required to consider the complaint under 28 U.S.C.A.
(a) Screening.--The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
(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.
the Court may dismiss the complaint as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim, though, it “must provide the
[prisoner] with notice of the deficiencies of his or her
complaint and an opportunity to amend the complaint prior to
dismissal.” McGucken v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,
1055 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sparling v. Hoffman
Constr., Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988);
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.
1987). On the other hand, leave to amend need not be granted
“where the amendment would be futile or where the
amended complaint would be subject to dismissal.”
Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir.
1991). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
complaint must allege: (1) the conduct complained of was
committed by a person acting under color of state law, and
(2) the conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or
immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant the State
of Washington. The State of Washington is not a
“person” for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights action. See Will v. Michigan Dep't. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 71 (1989). Thus, the
State of Washington cannot be sued under § 1983. And the
State is entitled to immunity from lawsuits for damages under
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Hafer v. Melo,502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991); Edelman
v. Jordan,415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). There is no
evidence the State of Washington has waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity in federal court ...