Bradley v. Key Bank

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 ALONZO BRADLEY, CASE NO. C20-1120-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 KEY BANK CORPORATE, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s supplemental documents filed in 16 support of his initial complaint (Dkt. Nos. 8–10). On August 5, 2020, the Court reviewed 17 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found that 18 Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (See generally Dkt. No. 19 6.) Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to state viable Eighth and Thirteenth 20 Amendment claims because “he fails to allege that Defendant, a private corporation, is a 21 governmental actor.” (Id. at 2) (citing Taggart v. Moody’s Inv’rs Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 2076980, 22 slip op. at 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). The Court further found that Plaintiff had failed to state a viable 23 Thirteenth Amendment claim “because he has not offered factual allegations sufficient to 24 establish a plausible claim that he has been subjected to involuntary servitude.” (Id. at 3) (citing 25 United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942–44 (1988)). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an 26 amended complaint curing the defects identified by the Court. (Id.) 1 In his “amendment of complaint addendum,” Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the 2 Eighth Amendment by, in part, creating “numerous and hostile contacts” with him and exposing 3 his personal information. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1–2.) But Plaintiff again fails to establish a plausible 4 claim that Defendant is a governmental actor. See Taggart, 2007 WL 2076980, slip op. at 4. 5 Similarly, while Plaintiff brings many new allegations in support of his Fourteenth Amendment 6 claim, none of the allegations establish a plausible claim that Defendant is a governmental actor. 7 See id.; (Dkt. No. 8 at 4–5). And Plaintiff’s allegations with regard to his Thirteenth Amendment 8 claim, including that Defendant and other financial institutions have improperly penalized his 9 accounts or removed him from their premises, do not establish a plausible claim that Plaintiff has 10 been subjected to involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment. See 11 Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 942–44 (collecting cases); (Dkt. No. 8 at 2–4). Finally, while Plaintiffs 12 other documents assert that “Qualstar Credit Union has decided to jump on band wagon and 13 refuse to reopen my credit Union account further participating with Key Bank and many other 14 financial institutions that I’ve mentioned,” (Dkt. Nos. 9 at 1, 10 at 1), those documents do not 15 cure the defects in his complaint, assert a cognizable legal theory, or allege sufficient facts to 16 support claims against Qualstar Credit Union, see Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 17 2013). 18 As Plaintiff’s supplemental documents filed in support of his complaint fail to cure the 19 deficiencies previously identified by the Court, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 20 complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is 21 DIRECTED to close this case. 22 DATED this 20th day of August 2020. A 23 24 25 John C. Coughenour 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE