United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND COMPLAINT
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nathanael Wilfred Broussard, proceeding pro se,
filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Dkt. 1-1. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court declines to serve Plaintiff's Complaint but
provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by
December 20, 2019, to cure the deficiencies identified
who is currently housed at Washington State Penitentiary,
alleges Defendants Tacoma News Tribune and Craig Hill, a
journalist, violated his right to privacy when they posted a
story on Facebook and discussed Plaintiff's prior arrest
history. Dkt. 1-1 at 4. Plaintiff alleges he has suffered
public embarrassment and humiliation and seeks monetary
relief. Dkt. 1-1 at 6-7.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 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.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a 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 law. See Crumpton v.
Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first
step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to identify the
specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To
satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts
showing how individually named defendants caused, or
personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the
complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981).
person acts under color of state law when he or she
“exercises power possessed by virtue of state law and
made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the
authority of state law.” Id. at 49. “The
purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using
the badge of their authority depriving individuals of their
federally guaranteed rights.” McDade v. West,
223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Wyatt v.
Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992)).
Plaintiff fails to name a proper defendant. Plaintiff has
named Tacoma News Tribune and Craig Hill as defendants. Dkt.
1-1. Generally, private parties do not act under color of
state law. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08
(9th Cir. 1991). A private individual's action may be
“under color of state law” where there is
“significant” state involvement in the action.
Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted). The Supreme Court has articulated four
tests for determining whether a private individual's
actions amount to state action: (1) the public function test;
(2) the joint action test; (3) the state compulsion test; and
(4) the governmental nexus test. Id. at 445.
Satisfaction of any one test is sufficient to find state
action, so long as no countervailing factor exists. Lee
v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff's allegations do not satisfy any of these four
tests. Plaintiff has not alleged any state involvement in
Defendants actions. Because Plaintiff may not pursue actions
against a private party absent facts showing how the private
individual's actions amount to state action, Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against Defendants. Plaintiff must
show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed.
to Plaintiff and the Clerk
the deficiency described above, the Court will not serve the
Plaintiff's Complaint. If Plaintiff intends to pursue a
§ 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file
an amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he
must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1)
the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2)
the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly
what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action
or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation
of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what
specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the
individual's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original Complaint, and not as a supplement. An amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. Forsyth v.
Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997)
overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the
amended complaint must be complete in itself and all facts
and causes of action alleged in the original Complaint that
are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. The Court will screen the
amended complaint to determine whether it contains factual
allegations linking each Defendant to the alleged violations
of Plaintiff's rights. The Court will not authorize
service of the amended complaint on any Defendant who is not
specifically linked to a violation of Plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issue raised herein on or before
December 20, 2019 the undersigned will recommend dismissal of
this action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for
filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for
service. The Clerk is further directed to send copies ...