Bettys v. Hamil
This text of Bettys v. Hamil (Bettys v. Hamil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN EDWARD BETTYS, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5078-RBL-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. REGARDING STATE AND DOE DEFENDANTS 13 JOHN HAMIL, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15 16 Plaintiff John Edward Bettys, a Washington State civilly-committed detainee proceeding 17 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 4. 18 After reviewing and screening Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has 19 issued a separate order directing service upon the individually named defendants. Dkt. 5. 20 However, several of the remaining Defendants are not proper defendants in an action under 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court lacks sufficient information to serve the remaining Defendants. 22 Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the State of Washington, the 23 Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Special Commitment Center (SCC) 24 should not be dismissed. The Court further orders Plaintiff to provide full names and addresses 1 sufficient for the Court to complete service upon the John/Jane Doe Defendants and the members 2 of the two committees named in the Complaint. 3 A. Improper Defendants 4 Plaintiff names as defendants the State of Washington, DSHS and the SCC. Dkt. 4 at 2.
5 These entities cannot be sued in a § 1983 action. 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983 applies to the actions of “persons” acting under color of state law. 7 However, for purposes of § 1983, a state is not a “person” and cannot be sued for damages or for 8 injunctive relief. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997); Will v. 9 Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Similarly, DSHS and the SCC, which are 10 arms of the state, are also not “persons” under § 1983. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 11 (1990); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam). 12 Plaintiff shall show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed from this case. 13 B. Defendants Who Cannot Be Served 14 Plaintiff also names several “Jane Does” and “John Does” as defendants. Dkt. 4 at 3, 12,
15 13. The use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 16 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Although a plaintiff may be given an opportunity after filing a lawsuit 17 to discover the identity of unknown defendants through discovery, the use of Doe defendants is 18 problematic because those persons cannot be served with process until they are identified by 19 their real names. Plaintiff must provide the names of Defendants identified as Jane/John Doe. 20 Finally, Plaintiff names as defendants the “SCC Cat-1 BMR Hearing Panel Members as 21 Seated On December 19, 2019 Meeting” (Hearing Panel) and the “SCC Move Committee Panel 22 As Seated Between November 24, 2019 to January 15, 2020” (Move Committee). Dkt. 4 at 13. 23 These defendants are not capable of being served. Plaintiff must either name as defendants the
24 1 individual members of the committees or show cause why the committees should not be 2 dismissed. 3 Plaintiff is directed to provide the complete names and addresses for Defendants Jane 4 Doe #1 (Sheila), John Doe #2 (J. Fosmark), John Doe #3 (White) and John/Jane Doe #4 (Musa)
5 and the individual members of the Hearing Panel and Move Committee he wishes to name as 6 defendants. Further, Plaintiff shall also show cause why defendants Washington State, DSHS 7 and SCC— and, to the extent that Plaintiff has not named their individual members, the Hearing 8 Panel and Move Committee—should not be dismissed. Plaintiff shall respond by March 20, 9 2020. If Plaintiff does not respond by that date, the Court will recommend dismissal of these 10 Defendants from this action. 11 Dated this 20th day of February, 2020. 12 A 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bettys v. Hamil, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bettys-v-hamil-wawd-2020.