Recinos v. Child Protective Services

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05581
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 TIFFANY RECINOS, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-5581 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 v. 13 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND 14 HEALTH SERVICES; MAUREEN BARTLETT; and TRESA MOREAU, 15 Defendants. 16

17 The Court issues this Order sua sponte after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. No. 18 5.) Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds Recinos has failed to state a viable claim 19 against Defendants. The Court DISMISSES Recinos’ Complaint without prejudice. 20 Shortly after filing her claim, Recinos was granted leave to proceed in forma paurperis 21 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When a litigant is proceeding IFP, a court may 22 dismiss the action if it is (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may 23 be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 24 1 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a 2 claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 4 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).

5 “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a 6 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. 7 Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 8 motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 9 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a 10 plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 11 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 12 Dismissal is only proper if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the 13 claim that would entitle her to relief. Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In 14 making this determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the

15 complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Warshaw v. Xoma 16 Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court “construe[s] [a pro se plaintiff’s] pleadings 17 liberally and . . . afford[s] the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 18 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 Here, Recinos alleges that her four minor children were “kidnapped” by the State of 20 Washington and brought to Child Protective Services (“CPS”). (Complaint at 5.) Recinos states 21 that all court notifications regarding her children were given to her mother instead of her. (Id.) 22 Recinos requests CPS be charged with child abuse and neglect, along with criminal charges for 23 her mother and $3.25 million dollars in damages. (Id.)

24 1 Recinos’ Complaint fails to state a valid claim for relief for several reasons. First, it is 2 unclear what claims Recinos is bringing against the various Defendants. For the basis of federal 3 question jurisdiction Recinos cited to the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal basis 4 that provides a cause of action for relief. Second, Recinos fails to plead sufficient facts that

5 would allow the Court to draw an inference that any of the Defendants are liable and that 6 Recinos is entitled to relief. Recinos makes no mention of the Department of Social and Health 7 Services or Maureen Bartlett, yet names them both as Defendants. It is unclear the extent to 8 which either is involved, if at all, in Recinos’ case. Recinos’ mother, Tresa Moreau is also named 9 as a Defendant, however, it appears her only involvement is due to receiving notices regarding 10 the children’s removal from Recinos’ custody and trying to adopt the children. Neither of these 11 supports a cause of action against Moreau. Finally, Recinos asks for criminal charges to be 12 brought against CPS and her mother. But Recinos cannot bring a private right of action based on 13 a criminal statute. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding that criminal 14 provisions provide no basis for civil liability). Therefore, any requests for criminal charges fail.

15 For these reasons, the Court finds Recinos has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 16 granted. 17 Recinos also seeks monetary damages from State agencies that are immune from suit. 18 Recinos names Child Protective Services and the Department of Social and Health Services as 19 Defendants. Under the Eleventh Amendment, states and its agencies enjoy sovereign immunity 20 from private suits for damages or injunctive relieve in federal court. Dittman v. California, 191 21 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). Three exceptions to this exist. First, a state may waive its 22 immunity by consenting to the suit. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. 23 Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670 (1990). Second, Congress may subject states to suit in federal

24 1 court pursuant to lawmaking powers conferred by the Constitution itself. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of 2 Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 80 (2000). Third, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions seeking 3 only prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers sued in their official 4 capacities. Seminole Tribe of Fla. V. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 73 (1996). Because Recinos is attempting

5 to sue two state agencies for $3.25 million dollars and there is nothing to suggest that any of the 6 three exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment exist, these claims fail. Accordingly, the Court 7 dismisses them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 8 The Court DISMISSES Recinos’ Complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief 9 may be granted. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 10 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect [], a pro 11 se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior 12 to dismissal of the action.”) Should Recinos wish to fix the issues with her Complaint, she may 13 file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order. The Court is aware that Recinos 14 has filed several additional documents and motions in this case. The Court informs Recinos that

15 the Court will not consider any additional motions filed in this case unless and until she files an 16 amended complaint that fixes the issues discussed above. 17 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 18 Dated August 2, 2023. A 19 20 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 21 22 23 24