Recinos v. City of Orting

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05772
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TIFFANY RECINOS, CASE NO. 23-5772 RJB-GJL 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 CITY OF ORTING, WA UTILITIES, and RECOMMENDATION CITY OF ORTING, WA PUBLIC 14 WORKS, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. 18 Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Dkt. 4. The Court has considered the Report and 19 Recommendation (Dkt. 4), Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 5) and remaining file. 20 On August 26, 2023, the Plaintiff, pro se, filed an application to proceed informa 21 pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed complaint asserting claims against the City of Orting utilities and 22 public works in connection with issues related to her home’s plumbing, septic system and gas 23 leaks. Dkts. 1 and 1-1. (This is one of over twenty five cases the Plaintiff has filed this 24 year. See e.g. Recinos v. Washington State Insurance Commissioner, U.S. Dist. Court for the 1 W.D. Wash. case number 3:23-cv-5098 DGE; Recinos v. State of Washington, et. al., U.S. Dist. 2 Court for the W.D. Wash. case number 3:23-cv-5433 RSM; and Recinos v. Child Protective 3 Services, et. al., U.S. Dist. Court for the W.D. Wash. case number 3:23-cv-5581 MJP.) 4 Her proposed complaint is difficult to understand. In it, she contends that several 5 contractors told her that there were septic and natural gas leak problems at her home. Dkt. 1-1 at

6 3. The Plaintiff maintains that “reports are being altered and redacted which eliminate 7 emergency responses.” Id. at 4. She asserts that the “[G]overnment did not provide emergent 8 services because public disclosure was exempted.” Id. at 3. The Plaintiff references the “ninth 9 amendment.” Id. As relief, she states she wants her plumbing, septic, and gas leaks fixed “and 10 everything else that was hidden in documented home insurance inspections with the exemption 11 of public disclosure.” Id. The proposed complaint acknowledges that the Plaintiff is a 12 Washington resident and the City of Orting is a Washington state entity. Id. at 3. 13 On September 11, 2023, the Report and Recommendation was filed and recommends 14 dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 4. It recommends

15 finding that amendment of the proposed complaint would be futile and recommends denial of the 16 IFP application. Id. The Plaintiff’s objections do not address any of the issues raised in the 17 Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 5. 18 The Report and Recommendation should be adopted. The Plaintiff has failed to state a 19 claim on which relief could be granted. The Ninth Amendment to the federal constitution 20 provides, “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny 21 or disparage others retained by the people.” U.S. Const. amend IX. The Ninth Amendment “has 22 not been interpreted as independently securing any constitutional rights for purposes of making 23 out a constitutional violation.” Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 1 The Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights but “is simply a rule about how to read the 2 Constitution.” San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 3 1996)(cleaned up). 4 Further, the Plaintiff has failed to address the Report and Recommendation’s 5 recommendation that the Court find amendment of the proposed complaint is futile or that her

6 IFP application be denied. In her objections, she states she would like to “point out relevance 7 regarding reclamation and to the CERTIORARI conference to be held at the United States 8 America Supreme Court this month.” Dkt. 5 at 1 (emphasis in original). She contends that the 9 “reclamation process has ceased as this lawsuit segment started, which would lead one to belief 10 that the BUTTES homeowner associations involvement is prominent.” Id. The Plaintiff’s 11 objections additionally assert that “it identifies that the Insurance Commissioner did not exclude 12 public disclosure to them just to the Plaintiff.” Id. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) 13 should be adopted. 14 It is ORDERED that:

15  The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) IS ADOPTED; 16 o The Plaintiff’s IFP application (Dkt. 1) IS DENIED; and 17 o This case IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 19 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 20 Dated this 12th day of October, 2023. 21 A

22 ROBERT J. BRYAN 23 United States District Judge