Robinson v. Pierce County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05416
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05416-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 1) 13 PIERCE COUNTY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 18 Honorable David W. Christel, Chief United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 4) and Plaintiff 19 Barbara Robinson’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 5). For the reasons stated herein, the Court 20 ADOPTS the R&R but addresses Plaintiff’s objections below. 21 22 23 24 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a proposed complaint 3 on May 8, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff names Pierce County as the sole defendant. (Dkt. No. 1- 4 1.) She alleges Pierce County violated 33 U.S.C. § 931 by forcing non-citizens to lie on the

5 “online blue card and response to [jury summons].” (Id. at 3–5.) She asks this Court to halt 6 Pierce County’s juror services until it can revise all qualifying questions to ensure all persons 7 serving on Pierce County juries are United States Citizens. (Id.) 8 On May 18, 2023, Judge Christel issued an R&R, recommending “the proposed 9 complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, the Application to Proceed 10 IFP (Dkt. 1) be denied, and this case be closed.” The R&R notes the statute Plaintiff cites as 11 support of her claim is the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). 12 The LHWCA provides that a claimant or representative of a claimant who knowingly and 13 willfully makes a false statement or representation for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or 14 payment under the Act is guilty of a felony and can be punished by imprisonment and/or a fine.

15 33 U.S.C § 931(a). The R&R reasons this statute does not provide a basis for Plaintiff’s claim 16 that the Pierce County juror summons questionnaire allows non-citizens to lie about their 17 citizenship status. Because Plaintiff provides no other basis for her claims in the Complaint, the 18 R&R found amendment would be futile and recommends both dismissal of the Complaint and 19 denial of the IFP application. 20 21 OBJECTIONS 22 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 5.) In the objections, she cites to 23 no authority which provides a cause of action for such a suit against Pierce County. She again

24 1 cites to the LHWCA, which as the R&R comprehensively outlines, is not a basis for her claims. 2 Plaintiff additionally cites to Washington Revised Code § 5.60.050, which indicates which 3 persons are incompetent to testify. However, jurors do not testify so this statute too provides no 4 basis for her claims.

5 Perhaps most relevant to her claims, Plaintiff cites Washington Revised Code § 2.36.070 6 Qualification of a Juror. Under this statute, “A person shall be competent to serve as a juror in 7 the state of Washington unless that person . . . [i]s not a citizen of the United State [or] [i]s not a 8 resident of the county in which he or she has been summoned to serve[.]” Wash. Rev. Code § 9 2.36.070 (2)–(3). As Judge Christel writes in a footnote of the R&R, there are numerous 10 additional issues with the Complaint beyond the lack of basis for suit. (Dkt. No. 4 at 4.) 11 Plaintiff’s claims in both the Complaint and the objections are conclusory without identifying 12 any facts supporting a claim for relief. Plaintiff also fails to allege an injury in fact, a necessary 13 element of standing. See Barnum Timber Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 633 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). 14 Even if Pierce County were committing violations of Washington Revised Code § 2.36.070,

15 Plaintiff provides no basis for her standing in bringing suit; she instead again fruitlessly cites to 16 the LHWCA. (Dkt. No. 5 at 5.) 17 18 CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of 20 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the 21 remaining record, the Court hereby ORDERS: 22 23 1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4).

24 1 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s claims 2 are dismissed without prejudice. 3 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Hon. David 4 W. Christel.

5 6 Dated this 2nd day of August 2023. 7 8 A 9 David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24