Partman v. City of Seattle

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 2, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01516
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 MILES E PARTMAN, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01516-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED v. COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 13 CITY OF SEATTLE et al., AMEND 14 Defendant(s). 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging 17 violations of human trafficking laws. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the 18 remaining record, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted. The Court also finds that further amendment would be futile and DISMISSES the 20 Amended Complaint. 21 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff Miles Edward Partman filed a pro se complaint against 23 (1) the City of Seattle; (2) Working Washington, a local non-profit organization; (3) Uber 24 1 Technologies; and (4) the State of Washington (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1-1. 2 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1), which was granted 3 (Dkt. No. 3), and his Complaint was filed on the docket (Dkt. No. 4). On October 28, before 4 summonses were issued, Plaintiff requested leave to amend his Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) and filed

5 two motions for temporary restraining orders against the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police 6 Department1 (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6). At this stage of the litigation, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 7 allows Plaintiff to amend his Complaint once without having to get the Court’s permission. As 8 such, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed on the docket that same day. Dkt. No. 8. An 9 amended complaint supersedes and completely replaces the original complaint. See Hal Roach 10 Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1990) ("an amended pleading 11 supersedes the original"); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967) (same). 12 Since filing his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has filed two additional motions for 13 preliminary injunctive relief against Seattle (Dkt. No. 9) and Uber (Dkt. No. 10). 14 II. DISCUSSION

15 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status comes from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 16 Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to the requirements 17 set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these requirements is the Court’s duty to 18 dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 20 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”). 21 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 23

24 1 The Court notes that the Seattle Police Department was not named by Plaintiff as a Defendant in this case. 1 Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) 2 (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to assume the truth of the 3 complaint’s factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. 4 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual

5 allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 6 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the 7 plaintiff’s complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 8 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). If a plaintiff fails to meet the 9 plausibility standard, the court is permitted to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Generally, 10 courts will allow a pro se plaintiff to amend a complaint in lieu of dismissal unless amendment 11 would be futile because no set of facts can cure the deficiencies. Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 12 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 Here, the Court understands Plaintiff to raise a claim under the Trafficking Victims 14 Protection Act (“TVPA”).2 Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff argues that he is unable to make a living wage as

15 a gig worker, equating his reliance on gig apps to involuntary servitude as defined by the TVPA. 16 Id. Plaintiff further argues that Uber fails to pay premium wages allegedly required by a Seattle 17 ordinance and speculates that Seattle intends to allow that ordinance to expire, which would 18 make it even more difficult for him to make a living wage. Id. Finally, Plaintiff also challenges 19 the legality of recently passed state legislation related to gig economy workers for which 20 Working Washington lobbied. Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) make Uber pay damages for the 21 allegedly unpaid premium wages, (2) force Seattle to reauthorize and enforce the premium pay 22 ordinance, and (3) block the new state law from taking effect in 2023. Id. 23 2 Plaintiff cites 22 U.S.C. § 7201, which defines terms related to agricultural trade sanctions. The Court assumes this 24 is a transposition error in typing, as the definitions section of the TVPA is found at 22 U.S.C. § 7102. 1 The TVPA defines “involuntary servitude” as “(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended 2 to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, 3 that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (B) the abuse or 4 threatened abuse of the legal process.” 22 U.S.C. § 7102(8). The term “abuse or threatened abuse

5 of the legal process” means “the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether 6 administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not 7 designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or 8 refrain from taking some action.” 22 U.S.C. § 7102(1). For example, using “physical force, 9 threats of force, sexual assault and debt bondage to keep the victims in involuntary servitude” 10 can be found to have violated the TVPA. See, e.g., Press Release, Office of Public Affairs, Five 11 Brothers Charged in Human Trafficking Scheme That Smuggled Young Ukrainian Migrants 12 (Wednesday, June 30, 2010), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/five-brothers-charged-human- 13 trafficking-scheme-smuggled-young-ukrainian-migrants. Similarly, an employer who threatens 14 to call the police or immigration authorities if an immigrant employee attempts to leave a job site

15 or quit their job might be guilty of violating the TVPA. See, e.g., Press Release, EEOC Resolves 16 Slavery and Human Trafficking Suit Against Trans Bay Steel for an Estimated $1 Million (Dec. 17 8, 2006), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-resolves-slavery-and-human-trafficking-suit- 18 against-trans-bay-steel-estimated-1. 19 Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint makes clear that he relies on gig apps to make a 20 living. Dkt. No. 8. That said, nothing in the Amended Compliant indicates that any of the 21 Defendants ever intended to cause Plaintiff to believe that he would “suffer serious harm or 22 physical restraint” at their hands if he stopped using the gig apps. Although the Court is sensitive 23 to the fact that Plaintiff may not have any other sources of income—and may consequently suffer

24 serious harm if he lost that income—the decisive fact here is that Plaintiff’s reliance on gig apps 1 is entirely voluntary, and therefore cannot form the basis of an involuntary servitude claim. 2 Further, nothing in the TVPA allows a court to address Plaintiff’s concerns with local ordinances 3 or state laws regarding wages. 4 Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

5 Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Finding further that 6 amendment would be futile, as no set of facts could cure the deficiency, the Court DISMISSES 7 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without leave to further amend. As such, the Court STRIKES AS 8 MOOT all pending motions. The Clerk shall enter judgment consistent with this order. 9 Dated this 2nd day of November 2022. 10 A 11 Tana Lin United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24