Jones v. Seattle City Hall

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 29, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01301
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 CORTEZ JONES, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01301-RAJ 10 ORDER DENYING IFP v. 11 APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 SEATTLE CITY HALL 13 Defendant. 14

15 Pro se Plaintiff, Cortez D. Jones, filed an unsigned complaint alleging “Seattle 16 City Hall works with Satya Nadella & Ferguson to rob Cortez Duandre Jones Jean Marie 17 Tritant.” The complaint also names Seattle Police Headquarters, Seattle Police, and 18 Adrian Diaz and alleges “robbery leading into murder” and “discrimination.” Dkt. 1. 19 Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Id. 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must dismiss IFP complaints if “at any 21 22 time” it is determined the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also id. § 1915A(b)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (Section 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings, not just those 2 filed by prisoners). 3 Plaintiff does not indicate the legal basis for this Court to consider his complaint. 4 Assuming Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his federal rights, the Court construes the 5 action as brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To sustain a § 1983 civil rights claim, Plaintiff 6 must show (1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by 7 federal statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under 8 color of state or federal law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Crumpton v. Gates, 9 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To satisfy the second prong, Plaintiff must allege 10 facts showing how individually named Defendants caused or personally participated in 11 12 causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 13 1981). A defendant cannot be held liable solely on the basis of supervisory responsibility 14 or position. Monell v. Department of Social Servs., of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 15 691–94 (1978). Rather, Plaintiff must allege a Defendant’s own conduct violated his civil 16 rights. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385–90 (1989). 17 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and DENYS the IFP application and 18 DISMISSES the case without prejudice for the following reasons. First the complaint 19 fails to set forth sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 20 face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Labels and conclusions, lacking factual 21 enhancement are insufficient. Id. The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right 22 to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 23 1 (2007). The complaint lists names of potential Defendants but fails to provide any facts 2 regarding the acts they allegedly committed that Plaintiff contends violated his rights. 3 Second, the in forma pauperis statute accords Judges not only the authority to 4 dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory but also the power to 5 dismiss claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless, including allegations that 6 are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 7 Here, the complaint alleges in a disjointed way a robbery and murder involving the city 8 hall, Nadella and Ferguson. These are fantastical allegations subject to dismissal. 9 And third, the present complaint is duplicative of other complaints Plaintiff has 10 filed. See e.g., Jones v. Microsoft, et al., 23-1297-JHC (Suing Satya Nadella and Bob 11 12 Ferguson – Order Denying IFP issued 8/25/2023); Jones v. Harell, 23-1153-RSM (Suing 13 City of Seattle, Seattle Police and Seattle City Hall-Order Denying IFP issued 8/21/23). 14 Courts have uniformly agreed that, at a minimum, a malicious lawsuit is one that is 15 duplicative of another federal lawsuit involving the same plaintiff and defendant. See, 16 e.g., McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 1997) (affirming dismissal of § 17 1983 complaint as frivolous where it duplicated a prior federal lawsuit); Pittman v. 18 Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal of duplicative 19 complaint under pre–PLRA version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Murillo v. Taylor, 2015 20 WL4488060, at *15–16 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2015); Meadows v. Woods, 156 F.R.D. 165, 21 166 (W.D. Tenn 1994) (dismissing complaint as frivolous under pre-PLRA version of 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Adams v. California Department of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 23 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions 1 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court against the same 2 defendant.”). The present matter is duplicative of prior suits Plaintiff has already filed in 3 this Court. The Court accordingly DENIES the IFP application and DISMISSES the 4 complaint. 5 For the foregoing reasons the Plaintiff’s IFP application is DENIED, and the 6 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk is directed to close this case. 7 DATED this 29th day of August, 2023. 8

9 A

10 11 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23