Rogers v. Clark County Corrections

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05064
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA

8 DARYL ROGERS,

9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C22-5064-JCC

10 v. ORDER 11 CLARK COUNTY CORRECTIONS, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant Clark County’s motion to 15 dismiss, the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United 16 States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, and the remaining record, hereby 17 finds and ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) The R&R (Dkt. No. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 19 (2) Defendant Clark County’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part and 20 DENIED in part. 21 (3) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 6) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to his state law 22 claims, and as to his claims against Clark County Corrections and the Clark County Sheriff’s 23

ORDER - 1

C22-5064-JCC 1 Office. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to his Americans with 2 Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, his respondeat superior claim, and the federal 3 constitutional claims asserted against the individual Defendants listed in his complaint.1 As to 4 the claims dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended

5 complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order, curing the defects described in Judge Vaughan’s 6 R&R. 7 (4) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED. A decision to 8 appoint counsel is left to the discretion of the district court. Johnson v. U.S. Treas. Dep’t., 27 9 F.3d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1994). The court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 10 merits and plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light the complexity of the claims. 11 Turner v. Riaz, 2018 WL 5962726, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Cal. 2018). To date, Plaintiff has 12 demonstrated an ability to clearly articulate his claims and has not shown a likelihood of success 13 on the merits. Therefore, the Court will not appoint counsel in this case.

14 (5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for 15 Defendant, and to the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan. 16 // 17 1 Plaintiff argues Judge Vaughan erred by concluding Plaintiff failed to identify the unnamed 18 defendants to permit the Court to effectuate service. (Dkt. No. 27 at 1–2.) As a general rule, the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is disfavored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629, F.2d 637, 19 642–43 (9th Cir. 1980). However, if the identity of the alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of the complaint, “the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to 20 identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Id. at 642. Here, Judge Vaughan 21 concluded that even if the unnamed Defendants were properly named and served, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against them should be dismissed because they are too vague and 22 conclusory to state a viable claim for relief. (Dkt. No. 21 at 15.) Because those claims would be dismissed on other grounds, Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery as to their identity. 23

ORDER - 2

C22-5064-JCC 1 // 2 DATED this 10th day of January 2023. 3 A 4

5 JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORDER - 3

C22-5064-JCC