Chlentzos-Williams v. Burien District Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 JANET CHLENTZOS-WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05563 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 11 BURIEN/KING COUNTY DISTRICT PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS COURT, 12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 15 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges civil rights violations stemming from an incident in 2013 16 when the Burien District Court allegedly denied her to opportunity to present claims to a judge. 17 Dkt. 5 at 5. 18 As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because she alleges violations 19 stemming from 2013, which is well past the applicable three-year statute of limitations. See 20 Boston v. Kitsap Cnty., 852 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017). Because statute of limitations is an 21 insurmountable barrier to bringing such a claim so further amendment would be futile, dismissal 22 with prejudice appears to be proper. See Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 23 July 16, 2009). 24 1 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s statement that “my civil rights [were] violated when turned away 2 in Sept. 2013 from Clerk’s Desk to present my cases to a Judge” does not comply with Federal 3 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8, which requires “a short and plain statement showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While it is a short and plain statement, it 5 does not show that Plaintiff is plausibly entitled to relief.

6 Finally, the Burien District Court does not appear to be a proper defendant because it is a 7 municipal department. A plaintiff may only bring a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 8 1983 against “persons,” and while a municipality may be considered a “person,” a municipal 9 department may not. See Nelson v. Cnty of Sacramento, 926 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 10 2013). 11 Therefore, the Court does hereby ORDER: 12  The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 7); 13  Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 5) IS DISMISSED with prejudice; 14  The remaining motions pending before the Court in this matter ARE DENIED as

15 moot; 16  This case IS CLOSED. 17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 18 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 19 Dated this 15th day of October, 2021. 20 A 21 22 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 23 24