Quinn v. King County Risk Management

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE AEDIN QUINN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01356-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. KING COUNTY RISK

Defendant. Pro se Plaintiff Aedin Quinn pursues this action against Defendant King County Risk Management (the County) in forma pauperis (IFP). After reviewing the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 5, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court finds that Quinn fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Rather than dismissing his case outright, however, the Court grants Quinn leave to amend his complaint within 30 days of this Order to avoid dismissal. When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the action if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). When reviewing complaints under § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts necessarily consider only the operative complaint. See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding

that an amended complaint supersedes the original and renders the original of no legal effect). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Thus, a “document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Courts are not to “dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam))). But even so, the duties imposed on the Court by § 1915(e) are unwavering, and when an IFP plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, the action must be dismissed. Likewise, the Federal Rules require a complaint to offer: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Quinn alleges that he was employed as a bus driver for King County Metro and suffered a severe spinal injury while on the job in July 2017. Dkt. 5 at 3. He

asserts that he applied for disability benefits with the state agency, and “[t]he agency denied benefits in an order dated July 7, 2023, without rebuttal of [his medical expert’s] testimony.” Id. Quinn asks the Court to “examine the [administrative] record” to determine whether the state agency erred.

For his first cause of action, he asserts a violation of procedural due process, alleging he was “denied a fair hearing when the burden of proof was silently shifted to him without notice, depriving him of the opportunity to respond or present rebuttal.” Id. at 6. He explains that “during proceedings, [he] attempted to clarify whether Defendants had reviewed [his proffered] medical reports[.]” Dkt. No. 5 at 4. He alleges that the judge interrupted him, preventing his “clarification from

entering the record.” Id. Quinn explains, “[t]his interruption deprived [him] of a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a material issue and concealed the structural due process error that followed: a judgment rendered without addressing unrebutted expert evidence[.]” Id. He also asserts that his complaint raises “structural due process violations stemming from the trial court’s silent shifting of the burden of proof and the absence of any rebuttal to Plaintiff’s expert testimony.” Id. at 1.

His second claim is listed as “Unconstitutional Denial of Earned Benefits,” for which he alleges “[t]he denial of benefits violated Plaintiff’s protected property interest in earned disability compensation, constituting an unlawful taking under color of state law without due process.” Id. The Court finds that the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 5, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “To show a

procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must prove two distinct elements: ‘(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” United States v. 101 Houseco, LLC, 22 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified

Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998)). Taken as true, Quinn’s allegations show that the judge presiding over a hearing regarding disability benefits interrupted him, then issued a decision with which he disagrees. But Quinn fails to plausibly allege either element of a due process violation. First, he does not adequately plead that he had a protected property interest in the disability benefits he sought. Second, his allegations about

being interrupted during a hearing do not plausibly suggest a denial of adequate procedural protections. When allegations are “in line with a wide swath of rational” and legal behavior, they do not plausibly allege violations of the law. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, at 557 (2007) (“The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement reflects the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the ‘plain statement’ possess enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: • To avoid dismissal of this action, Quinn may file an amended complaint that states a claim on which relief may be granted WITHIN 21 DAYS of the date of this Order. Failure to do so by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), without prejudice.

• If filed, the amended complaint will serve as a complete substitute for the current complaint. Thus, any amended complaint must not incorporate the original complaint by reference, nor may it incorporate by reference any complaints from other litigation. Any amended

complaint must clearly identify the claims and the facts that support each claim.

G Dated this 25th day of August, 2025.

‘ pease — amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge