Bonds v. Piland
This text of Bonds v. Piland (Bonds v. Piland) 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 EZEKIEL TRAIVON BONDS, Case No. C22-5522 RAJ-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 TIMOTHY PILAND, JETHRA HOUN, 9 LASHYLA HARTMAN, 10 Defendants. 11 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a Motion for Leave to 12 Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 1. 13 Plaintiff is pro se. Dkt. 1-1. Due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will 14 not grant Plaintiff’s motion at this time, but he will be given an opportunity to show cause 15 why his IFP application should not be denied or to file an amended complaint by 16 September 16, 2022. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Pierce County Jail, filed his proposed 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 on July 19, 2022. He names two Pierce County police officers, Timothy Piland 20 and Jethra Houn, as defendants. He also names Lashyla Hartmon as a defendant, who 21 Plaintiff alleges unlawfully accused him of a crime. Dkt. 1-1, at 3. Plaintiff lists numerous 22 constitutional violations, including violations to his Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and 23 24 1 Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also appears to allege a general violation of his rights 2 under the Washington State Constitution. Id. at 4. 3 Plaintiff alleges that the named police officers unlawfully arrested him on 4 December 24, 2021. Id. at 5. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint on what grounds he
5 was arrested, but he states that “there was no domestic violence/malicious mischief or 6 firearms found in his possession.” Id. at 8. As a result of his allegedly unlawful arrest, 7 Plaintiff states that he suffered loss of time and is fearful for his life in prison. Id. He 8 seeks a restraining order against the police officers, to be released from prison, and two 9 million dollars in damages. Id. at 9. 10 DISCUSSION 11 The Court must dismiss the complaint of a prisoner “at any time if the [C]ourt 12 determines” that the action: (a) “is frivolous or malicious”; (b) “fails to state a claim on 13 which relief may be granted”’ or (c) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 14 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). A
15 complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 16 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 17 Before the Court may dismiss the complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a 18 claim, it “must provide the [prisoner] with notice of the deficiencies of his or her 19 complaint and an opportunity to amend the complaint prior to dismissal.” McGuckin v. 20 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 21 Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Sparling v. Hoffman 22 Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 23 1449 (9th Cir. 1987). Leave to amend need not be granted “where the amendment
24 1 would be futile or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal.” Saul v. 2 United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege: (1) the 4 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and
5 (2) the conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the 6 Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), 7 overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Section 1983 is 8 the appropriate avenue to remedy an alleged wrong only if both of these elements are 9 present. Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 All of the facts alleged in the complaint are related to plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful 11 arrest; one of the remedies requested in the complaint is for the Court to order plaintiff 12 released from state custody. To the extent plaintiff is challenging the fact or duration of 13 his confinement, habeas corpus is the only legal proceeding plaintiff may utilize. 14 Plaintiff also appears to be seeking damages relating to his alleged unlawful
15 seizure. However, there is ambiguity about what each defendant did or failed to do that 16 allegedly violated his rights and resulted in his allegedly unlawful arrest or seizure. That 17 is, plaintiff fails to clearly identify and state the alleged wrong-doing of each defendant 18 he seeks to proceed against in this suit. Rather, he states in a conclusory fashion that 19 he was unlawfully arrested. Dkt. 1-1, at 4. 20 Plaintiff must allege facts showing how each named defendant caused or 21 personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Leer v. Murphy, 22 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Sweeping conclusory allegations against an official 23
24 1 are insufficient to state a claim for relief. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 2 1988). 3 If plaintiff intends to pursue a § 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file a 4 proposed amended complaint and within the proposed amended complaint, he must
5 write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff 6 believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly 7 what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the individual is 8 connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury 9 Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 10 362, 371–72, 377 (1976). 11 CONCLUSION 12 Due to the deficiencies described above, the Court will not grant Plaintiff’s IFP 13 application or serve the complaint. Plaintiff is ordered, on or before September 16, 14 2022, to show cause as to why this Court should not recommend his IFP application be
15 denied. 16 Dated this 31st day of August, 2022. 17 18 A 19 Theresa L. Fricke 20 United States Magistrate Judge
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
Bonds v. Piland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonds-v-piland-wawd-2022.