Johnson v. Tacoma Police

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 14, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05548
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BRENDA M. JOHNSON, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05548-RJB 11 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 v. NOTED FOR: October 2, 2020 13 TACOMA POLICE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. See Am. Gen. Order No. 02-19. The Court’s authority for 18 the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. 19 This matter is before the Court on the undersigned’s Order to Show Cause or Amend 20 Proposed Complaint. See Dkt. 7. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has not responded to the Court’s 21 order, despite that the deadline to do so was on August 24, 2020. See id. Because plaintiff failed 22 to timely respond to the Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. 7), the undersigned recommends 23 24 1 denying plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Dkt. 5) and dismissing this action without 2 prejudice. 3 DISCUSSION 4 In her proposed complaint, plaintiff alleges that on June 2, 2020, Pioneer Human

5 Services’ manager, defendant Amber Miller, entered plaintiff’s residence without permission. 6 Dkt. 1, at 6. Plaintiff further alleges that she called the police for breaking and entering and 7 safety and health “COVID-19.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efendants . . . failed to investigate 8 [the] scene” of the breaking and entering, that defendants “left the suspect in the building,” and 9 that “[d]efendants wrote a false incident report.” Id. at 3, 6. Plaintiff further alleges that 10 defendants “treated her differently,” and that defendants were “negligen[t] [and] non-complian[t] 11 and “failed to perform dut[ies]” regarding unspecified housing violations. See id. at 6. 12 Based on the forgoing, plaintiff alleges that defendants Pioneer Human Services (a 13 nonprofit social enterprise), Amber Miller (Pioneer Human Services’ manager), the Tacoma 14 Police Department, two Tacoma police officers (Moses and Brame), the Tacoma Housing

15 Development, and a Tacoma Housing Development headquarter inspector (Jeff Fisher) violated 16 her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 17 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 18 U.S.C. §3601 (“Fair Housing Act”). See Dkt. 1, at 1–2, 7. 19 On July 24, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to amend her proposed complaint on the 20 basis that she failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Dkt. 7. Specifically, 21 the Court stated that plaintiff failed to properly name municipal defendants, failed to establish 22 municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate how 23 defendants Pioneer Human Services, Miller, and Fisher were subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §

24 1 1983, and failed to plead sufficient facts to plausibly state a claim of employment and/or housing 2 discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fair Housing Act. See id. at 5–10. 3 The Court further warned plaintiff that if she failed to amend her proposed complaint or 4 adequately address the issues raised in the order to show cause on or before August 24, 2020, the

5 undersigned would recommend denial of her in forma pauperis application (Dkt. 5) and 6 dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Dkt. 7, at 11. 7 Plaintiff has taken no action in response to the Court’s order to show cause. Therefore, 8 the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Dkt. 5) be DENIED, 9 and that this matter should be DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall have 11 fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo 13 review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a result in a waiver 14 of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Miranda v.

15 Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit 16 imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on October 2, 17 2020, as noted in the caption. 18 Dated this 14th day of September, 2020. 19

20 A 21 J. Richard Creatura 22 United States Magistrate Judge