Brower v. Quatch

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00687
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DAVID S BROWER, CASE NO. 25-cv-00687-JHC 8

Petitioner, 9 ORDER v. 10 DANIELLE T T QUATCH, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 I INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court has examined self-represented 16 Plaintiff David S. Brower’s complaint, Dkt. # 5, and for the reasons discussed below 17 DISMISSES it without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 18 II 19 BACKGROUND 20 On April 14, 2025, Brower moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and filed 21 an emergency motion for injunctive relief against Danielle T.T. Quatch; Ashleigh B. Holmes; the 22 law firm of Nunn, Vhan & Lang, P.L.L.C; and King County Superior Court. Dkt. # 1. Brower 23 also filed a complaint that is identical to the emergency motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. # 5. 24 Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida granted Brower IFP status. Dkt. # 4. 1 A complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding IFP is subject to a mandatory sua sponte 2 review and the court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action 3 or appeal—(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

4 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 7 Brower claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the Americans with 8 Disabilities Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and RCW 9A.36.060. Dkt. # 5 at 5. Under the “Emergency 9 Basis for Federal Relief” section of the complaint, Brower writes, “Petitioner files this 10 emergency motion because no further state-level remedy exists. After four years of domestic 11 violence, procedural sabotage, targeted litigation abuse, and deliberate emotional destabilization, 12 the state court system has become an instrument of coercion rather than protection.” Dkt. # 5 at

13 5. Under the same section, Brower alleges “King County Superior Court is scheduled to issue 14 post-trial enforcement orders in a case where Petitioner’s constitutional rights, ADA protections, 15 and evidentiary access were systematically denied.” Id. Brower further alleges that Defendants 16 are responsible for “[o]ngoing retaliation and procedural misconduct occurring under the color of 17 state law, [a]ctive interference with ADA-protected access to a federally recognized psychiatric 18 service animal, [m]ultiple violations of a Domestic Violence Protection Order, [a]nd the 19 suppression of time-sensitive evidentiary materials in a trial that resulted in irreparable harm.” 20 Dkt. # 1-7. Brower seeks “permanent injunctive relief and federal oversight” related to these 21 alleged violations. Dkt. # 5 at 18–20. 22

23 24 1 III DISCUSSION 2 Even liberally construed, Brower’s complaint fails to state a claim. Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim 4 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual 5 allegations, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 6 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Simply stating the 7 elements of a cause of action and then supporting it by mere conclusory statements does not 8 suffice. See id. The Court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely 9 conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden 10 State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Brower does not meet this standard because 11 his factual allegations are largely unrelated to his claims and are too vague to evaluate. 12 In addition, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a lower federal court from reviewing a 13 state court decision. Hooper v. Brnovich, 56 F.4th 619, 624 (9th Cir. 2022). This doctrine 14 prevents a federal district court from exercising jurisdiction “not only over an action explicitly 15 styled as a direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ of such an appeal.” Id. (quoting 16 Morrison v. Peterson, 809 F.3d 1059, 1069–70 (9th Cir. 2015)). An impermissible de facto 17 appeal arises under Rooker-Feldman “when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a 18 legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that 19 court.” Id. (quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003)). A review of the 20 materials Brower has filed shows his complaint is largely a “de facto” appeal of claimed legal 21 wrongs committed during his divorce proceedings in King County Superior Court. The Court 22 does not have jurisdiction to hear these claims. 23

24 1 IV CONCLUSION 2 For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Brower’s claims under 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1) and grants him leave to amend, if he wishes, within 14 days of the 4 filing of this Order. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (when a court 5 dismisses a self-represented plaintiff's complaint, the court must give the plaintiff leave to 6 amend “[uJnless it 1s absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 7 || Tf Brower’s amended complaint fails to meet the required pleading standard, the Court will 8 dismiss the matter with prejudice. Given this ruling, the Court STRIKES the motions at Dkt. ## 9 10 Dated this 29th day of April, 2025. 1] he.

United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24