Lettieri v. T-Mobile

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 5, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DAVID CARMINE LETTIERI, CASE NO. C24-0028-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE AND 9 v. PROVIDING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 10 T-MOBILE, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 This matter comes before the Court on the civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff David 13 Carmine Lettieri, proceeding pro se. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 7. In granting Plaintiff’s application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Tsuchida recommended that the Court 15 screen Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuing summons. Dkt. No. 16 6. Based on its review, the Court declines to serve the complaint at this time and will provide 17 Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by April 5, 2024, to cure the deficiencies identified 18 herein. 19 The Court will dismiss a complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises 20 frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 21 relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In order to state a claim for relief under Bivens v. Six 22 Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), a plaintiff must show that (1) a person acting under 23 color of federal law committed the conduct at issue; and (2) the federal actor’s conduct deprived 24 1 the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the United States Constitution or the 2 laws of the United States. See Beltran v. United States, No. 3:15-CV-00785-SI, 2015 WL 3 7722414, at *3 (citing Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)). “A Bivens action can

4 be maintained only against federal officials in their individual capacities.” Leon v. Elledge, No. 5 2:22-cv-00851-BHS-TLF, 2022 WL 17904063, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2022) (citing Morgan 6 v. United States, 323 F.3d 776, 780 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007)). 7 Plaintiff’s complaint purports to raise Bivens claims against federal officials and indicates 8 that the constitutional rights at issue in his case relate to the fabrication of evidence and his right 9 to confrontation and a fair trial. See Dkt. No. 7 at 3–4. Plaintiff has not explained how the four 10 Defendants listed in the complaint, which include T-Mobile and a T-Mobile employee, were acting 11 under color of federal law, nor has he explained how actions or inactions he describes violated his 12 constitutional rights. See id. at 2–3, Dkt. No. 1-2.

13 If Plaintiff intends to pursue a Bivens claim in this Court, he must file an amended 14 complaint no later than April 5, 2024. In his amended complaint, he must write a short, plain 15 statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right he believes was violated; (2) the name of 16 the person(s) who violated the right; (3) exactly what each individual did or failed to do; (4) how 17 the individual’s action or inaction violated his constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury he 18 suffered because of the individual’s conduct. 19 The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the original complaint and 20 shall be presented on the form provided by the Court. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 21 and/or fails to adequately address the issues identified in this order, the Court may dismiss this 22 action.

23 24 1 The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff (1) the appropriate forms for filing a civil rights 2 complaint, (2) a copy of this order, and (3) the Pro Se Instruction Sheet. 3 Dated this 5th day of March, 2024.

4 A 5 Kymberly K. Evanson 6 United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24