Hayden v. Knight

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 21, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 WALTER G. HAYDEN, JR. ) Plaintiff, ) 8 vs. ) CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01527-JHC ) 9 CALI KNIGHT, Executive Director External ) Relations; GAIL STONE, Law and Justice Policy ) ORDER RE: KING COUNTY 10 Senior Advisor; MICHAEL PADILLA, External ) DEFENDANTS’ FRCP 12(b)(6) Relations Associate; CLAUDIA BALDUCCI, ) MOTION TO DISMISS 11 King County Council; ROD DEMBOWSKI, King ) County Council; ZAHILAY GIRMAY, King ) 12 County Council; AMY CALDERWOOD, Director ) of King County Ombudsman’s Office; LUKE OH, ) 13 Deputy, King Ombuds Office; JONATHAN ) STIER, Senior Deputy, King County Ombuds ) 14 Office; BRUCE HARRELL, Mayor of Seattle; ) KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE & ) 15 MUNICIPALITY, Governmental Agencies and ) Agents, ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 )

18 This matter comes before the Court on King County Defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion 19 to Dismiss. Dkt. # 18. Plaintiff is pro se. The King County Defendants are Cali Knight, Gail 20 Stone, Michael Padilla, Claudia Balducci, Rod Dembowski, Zahilay Girmay, Amy Calderwood, 21 Luke Oh, and Jonathan Stier. The Court has c onsidered the motion, the apparent response 22 thereto (Dkt. # 22), the balance of the case file , and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the 23 Court rules as follows: ORDER RE: KING COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ FRCP

12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a 2 complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 3 Here, the motion to dismiss appears to have merit. The complaint purports to assert section 1983 4 claims based on “Article I Section 8” and “Article 3 Section 2.” See Dkt. # 4 (form complaint

5 asks, “If you are suing under section 1983, what federal constitutional or statutory right(s) do 6 you claim is/are being violated by state or local officials?”). It appears the complaint is referring 7 to Articles 1 and 3 of the United States Constitution, which, respectively, concern Congress and 8 the Judiciary. From this, the Court does not see how Plaintiff is asserting a legally cognizable 9 claim under section 1983. Moreover, it appears that legislative immunity protects the King 10 County Councilmembers and that qualified immunity protects the King County Defendants. 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion. But the Court DISMISSES the claims 12 against the King County Defendants WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 13 To be sure, when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must allow leave to

14 amend the complaint “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect.” 15 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Nat’l Council of La Raza v. 16 Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] district court must give plaintiffs at least 17 one chance to amend a deficient complaint, absent a clear showing that amendment would be 18 futile.”). Whether it is clear here that amendment would be futile is a close call. But the Court 19 believes it in the interest of justice to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint at least once. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint with respect to the King 21 County Defendants. Plaintiff must file any suc h amended complaint by Thursday, March 23, 22 2023. 23 ORDER RE: KING COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ FRCP

12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 DATED this 21* day of February, 2023. 2 3 < [ob ¥. Chur JOHN H. CHUN 4 United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER RE: KING COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS (2:22-cv-01527- JHC) - 3