Addleman v. King County

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LINCOLN LANE ADDLEMAN JR. et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00286 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte to address deficiencies with Plaintiffs’ 15 complaint. 16 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed their complaint on March 6, 17 2023. Dkts. ## 6, 7. Their complaint uses select pages from a court-provided Complaint for 18 Violation of Civil Rights form. See Dkt. # 7. The complaint names 24 defendants, and it 19 includes a basis for jurisdiction. Id. at 2–9, 11. The complaint does not include a description of 20 Plaintiffs’ claims, the factual allegations supporting their claims, or a demand for relief. See 21 generally id. Attached to the complaint is a document titled “Clarification of Litigious 22 Activities,” that includes more information (hereafter “Complaint Attachment”). Dkt. # 7-1. 23 The Complaint Attachment states that Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the All 24 1 Writs Act, several Revised Code of Washington provisions, and the United States Constitution. 2 Dkt. # 7-1 at 19–23. Pages 13 through 38 of the Complaint Attachment describe the factual 3 allegations involving the named Defendants. Id. at 13–38. Plaintiffs’ demand for relief states:

4 “Stop rewarding bad faith behaviors and constitution[al] violations with federal grant money. 5 This just requires a declaratory judgment.” Id. at 39. Elsewhere Plaintiffs request money 6 damages and other alternative forms of relief. See id. at 40. 7 On April 27, 2023, the Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. # 22), construing it as one 8 for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Dkt. # 23 at 1. The Court 9 dismissed without prejudice all claims against these Defendants: Ron Bishop, Nathan Bishop, 10 Kirk Patterson, Aldridge Pite LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, and Ofunne Edozeim. Id. at 2. On May 5, 11 2023, Plaintiffs filed on the docket 21 summonses. Dkt. # 24. Three were for individuals not 12 named in Plaintiffs’ complaint: “Michelle 74940,” Kyle Tull, and “E.M.W.” Id. at 19–21.

13 The Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants and holds them “to less 14 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 15 520 (1972). But pro se “pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing 16 a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 17 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, district courts should “not supply essential 18 elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 19 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 20 1982)). “[I]t is axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same 21 procedural requirements as other litigants.” Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 22 2022).

23 The Court has examined Plaintiffs’ documents filed at Dkts. ## 7 and 7-1, to which the 24 Court collectively refers as their complaint, and finds that it does not meet the requirements of 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and 2 plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for 3 the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiffs’ complaint does not include a short and plain

4 statement of their claims. It is unclear which claims pertain to which Defendants. The Court is 5 also uncertain as to which factual allegations correlate with which claims. And many allegations 6 involve individuals or entities who are no longer Defendants in this case. See Dkt. # 23 (order 7 dismissing claims against six Defendants). The Court would also appreciate if Plaintiffs clarified 8 which forms of relief they seek. 9 The Court believes this case will be best served by Plaintiffs filing a proper amended 10 complaint containing all of Plaintiffs’ revisions in one document. The Court therefore dismisses 11 without prejudice Plaintiffs’ complaint (Dkt. # 7) and grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended 12 complaint. Plaintiffs must title the document “First Amended Complaint.” The First Amended

13 Complaint must include: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s 14 jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the specific legal claims being raised; and (3) a 15 demand for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8. Plaintiffs must include all anticipated 16 Defendants and identify which claims pertain to which Defendants. The Court strongly urges 17 Plaintiffs to review the resources for pro se litigants available at: 18 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se. The Court also encourages 19 Plaintiffs to review the template forms available at: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/court- 20 forms#Pro% 20Se. Plaintiffs must file their First Amended Complaint by no later than May 22, 21 2023. Plaintiffs’ failure to file a First Amended Complaint that conforms to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 8(a) may affect the status of this case, including dismissal without prejudice of

23 the action. 24 1 Based on the above, the Court ORDERS that: 2 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint filed at Dkt. # 7 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 2. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 4 || fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order or by no later than May 22, 2023. 5 Dated this 8th day of May, 2023. ° [ok 4. Chun 7 John H. Chun United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24