Hayden v. Knight

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 WALTER HAYDEN et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01527-JHC 8

Plaintiffs, ORDER 9 v. 10 CALI KNIGHT et al., 11

Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on King County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 15 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 35. The Court has considered the materials filed in 16 support of, and apparently in opposition to, the motion, as well as the balance of the file and the 17 applicable law. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and 18 DENIES it in part. 19 On February 21, 2023, the Court dismissed pro se Plaintiff’s then claims against the King 20 County Defendants without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. # 21 27. Plaintiff then filed five pleadings, which appear to be amendments to the original complaint. 22 See Dkts. ## 29 (“Amendment to 1983 Civil Rights Complaint Lawsuit”), 30 (“Amendment to 23 1983 Injury and Relief”), 32 (“Amendment to 1983 Civil Rights Complaint Lawsuit”), 33 24 1 (“Amendment to 1983 Civil Rights Complaint Lawsuit”) & 34 (“Amendment to 1983 Civil 2 Rights Complaint Lawsuit”). The King County Defendants again move to dismiss Plaintiff’s 3 claims against them.

4 When considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the 5 light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, 6 Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must 7 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 8 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 9 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content 10 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 11 misconduct alleged.” Id. But legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and 12 “must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. A court may dismiss a complaint under

13 Rule 12(b)(6) that lacks a “cognizable legal theory” or fails to allege “sufficient facts” under a 14 cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 The Court understands that Plaintiff is proceeding pro see and that he apparently feels 16 that he has been wrongly treated by the King County Defendants. But the Court cannot discern 17 any cognizable legal theory in Plaintiff’s pleadings supporting a claim in this court against any of 18 the King County Defendants. 19 The motion seeks dismissal of the claims with prejudice. The Court GRANTS in part 20 and DENIES in part the motion. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against the King 21 County Defendants without prejudice. The Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to again amend 22 his complaint.

23 / 24 / l Dated this 14th day of April, 2023. ° Cok 4 Chur 3 John H. Chun United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24