Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

W.D. Washington

Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

DecidedApril 25, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05274

StatusUnknown

This text of Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services) 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.

Bluebook

Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRIGGS, Case No. 3:25-cv-05274 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR 9 COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED v. UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) 10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT 11 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court at the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Theresa 15 L.Fricke in her Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 4. On March 31, 16 2025, pro se Plaintiff Christoper John Briggs filed his complaint against Defendant Washington 17 State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) and moved for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 5. The Court referred the motion to Judge Fricke, who granted 19 Mr. Briggs’s application to proceed IFP but recommended review of the case under 28 U.S.C. 20 §1915(e)(2)(B) because “it does not appear Plaintiff has met the criteria for IFP required under 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).” Dkt 4. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 24 proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But the “privilege of pleading in forma 1 pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” 2 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28

4 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case that is 5 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 6 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. 7 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that Section 1915(e) “not only 8 permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim). 9 Unless it is clear a pro se plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of a complaint, the Court will 10 provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint to state a plausible claim. See 11 United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without 12 leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not

13 be saved by any amendment.”). 14 II. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT Mr. Briggs’s complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who enjoys immunity 15 from such a lawsuit. The Eleventh Amendment declares that “[t]he Judicial power of the United 16 States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 17 against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any 18 Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. “Longstanding Supreme Court precedent has interpreted 19 this Amendment to immunize states from suit in federal court by citizens and noncitizens alike.” 20 Kohn v. State Bar of California, 87 F.4th 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 21 1465 (2024) (citing cases). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies, which 22 cannot be sued for damages or injunctive relief in federal court. See Savage v. Glendale Union 23 24 1 || High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation 2 omitted). 3 Mr. Briggs claims that his DSHS WASHCAP food assistance benefits were unlawfully 4 reduced from $200 a month to $23 a month. Dkt. 5 at 5. He claims a “rights violation,” and 5 requests “more food stamps,” specifically a restoration of his $200 a month benefit. Jd. at 4—S. 6 Briggs cannot sue DSHS for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See 7 || Savage, 343 F.3d at 1040. Because Mr. Briggs “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief,” the Court is required to dismiss his IFP complaint unless he can cure g deficiencies. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iti); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 10 at 995. 11 I. CONCLUSION 2 Mr. Briggs is directed to file a proposed amended complaint within 21 days of this Order

13 that states a plausible claim for relief against a defendant who may be sued in federal court.

14 Otherwise, the Court will dismiss his complaint without prejudice. 15 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

16 || t© any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

17 18 Dated this 25th day of April, 2025.

19 J . - CC 0 Tiffan}M. Cartwright United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C. §

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRIGGS, Case No. 3:25-cv-05274 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR 9 COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED v. UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) 10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT 11 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court at the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Theresa 15 L.Fricke in her Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 4. On March 31, 16 2025, pro se Plaintiff Christoper John Briggs filed his complaint against Defendant Washington 17 State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) and moved for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 5. The Court referred the motion to Judge Fricke, who granted 19 Mr. Briggs’s application to proceed IFP but recommended review of the case under 28 U.S.C. 20 §1915(e)(2)(B) because “it does not appear Plaintiff has met the criteria for IFP required under 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).” Dkt 4. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 24 proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But the “privilege of pleading in forma 1 pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” 2 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28

4 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case that is 5 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 6 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. 7 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that Section 1915(e) “not only 8 permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim). 9 Unless it is clear a pro se plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of a complaint, the Court will 10 provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint to state a plausible claim. See 11 United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without 12 leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not

13 be saved by any amendment.”). 14 II. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT Mr. Briggs’s complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who enjoys immunity 15 from such a lawsuit. The Eleventh Amendment declares that “[t]he Judicial power of the United 16 States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 17 against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any 18 Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. “Longstanding Supreme Court precedent has interpreted 19 this Amendment to immunize states from suit in federal court by citizens and noncitizens alike.” 20 Kohn v. State Bar of California, 87 F.4th 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 21 1465 (2024) (citing cases). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies, which 22 cannot be sued for damages or injunctive relief in federal court. See Savage v. Glendale Union 23 24 1 || High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation 2 omitted). 3 Mr. Briggs claims that his DSHS WASHCAP food assistance benefits were unlawfully 4 reduced from $200 a month to $23 a month. Dkt. 5 at 5. He claims a “rights violation,” and 5 requests “more food stamps,” specifically a restoration of his $200 a month benefit. Jd. at 4—S. 6 Briggs cannot sue DSHS for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See 7 || Savage, 343 F.3d at 1040. Because Mr. Briggs “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief,” the Court is required to dismiss his IFP complaint unless he can cure g deficiencies. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iti); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 10 at 995. 11 I. CONCLUSION 2 Mr. Briggs is directed to file a proposed amended complaint within 21 days of this Order

13 that states a plausible claim for relief against a defendant who may be sued in federal court.

14 Otherwise, the Court will dismiss his complaint without prejudice. 15 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

17 18 Dated this 25th day of April, 2025.

19 J . - CC 0 Tiffan}M. Cartwright United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C. §

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Briggs v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-washington-state-department-of-social-and-health-services-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack