Smith v. Souvenir

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JONATHAN DANIEL SMITH, Case No. C19-5838 RBL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 8 TO AMEND COMPLAINT ROBIN SOUVENIR, 9 Defendants. 10

11 Plaintiff Jonathan Daniel Smith, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 12 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, names Darren Carlson and “Current Jail 13 Administrator (at the time of incident)” as defendants in his complaint. Dkt. 6. The Court 14 ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why these defendants should not be dismissed 15 from the complaint. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff has responded to this order. Dkt. 13. The Court 16 finds the response satisfactory and orders that plaintiff will be allowed to submit an 17 amended complaint incorporating the alleged facts from plaintiff’s response. 18 Darren Carlson 19 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the defendant must be a person acting 20 under color of state law, and his conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of rights, 21 privileges or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. 22 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). A private individual may 23 only be liable under § 1983 only if he conspired or entered into joint action with a state 24 1 actor. Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 783 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 2 U.S. 1020 (2001). To prove conspiracy, however, a plaintiff must allege facts showing 3 “an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights.” United 4 Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (9th Cir.1989)

5 (quotations omitted). “To be liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not know the 6 exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share the common objective 7 of the conspiracy.” Id. at 1541. 8 Plaintiff’s response included additional facts alleging Darren Carlson’s assault on 9 plaintiff was in furtherance of the state’s aim to secure information pertaining to 10 plaintiff’s criminal defense. Dkt. 13, at 2-3. Plaintiff claims that another defendant named 11 in this case, either Sergeant Patterson or Anthony Kimball, had known of Mr. Carlson’s 12 assault on another inmate in plaintiff’s unit. Id. at 2. He asserts that they failed to protect 13 plaintiff from violent assault by allowing Mr. Carlson to remain in the unit. Id. 14 Plaintiff also alleges that on the first day that Mr. Carlson was assigned to

15 plaintiff’s unit, Mr. Carlson engaged plaintiff in intrusive questioning about plaintiff’s case 16 and defense strategy, demonstrating knowledge about one of plaintiff’s intended 17 witnesses that plaintiff had kept private. Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that this knowledge 18 could only have been made known to Mr. Carlson through collaboration with the state. 19 Id. Plaintiff alleges that the assault itself followed another round of questioning, where 20 plaintiff’s refusal to directly answer Mr. Carlson’s questions angered Mr. Carlson to the 21 point of violence. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he requested “many times” to be reassigned to 22 a different unit away from Mr. Carlson, suggesting that the refusal to separate the 23 inmates was a tacit approval from the state of both the questioning and the assault. Id.

24 1 The Court finds these alleged facts, given a liberal reading because plaintiff is a 2 pro se litigant, to be sufficient for screening purposes, against Darren Carlson for joint 3 action or conspiracy with the state in this § 1983 action. The Court therefore orders that 4 plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint to include these facts, upon which the

5 Court may serve the complaint on Mr. Carlson. 6 Current Jail Administrator 7 Plaintiff bears the burden of providing accurate and sufficient information to effect 8 service of the summons and complaint. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th 9 Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see 10 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff named “Current Administrator of Pacific County Jail” as a 11 defendant in this action. Dkt. 6, at 2. The Court advised plaintiff to provide defendant’s 12 name, which Plaintiff’s response has provided as Pat Matlock. Dkt. 13, at 4. The Court 13 finds this is sufficient information to serve the defendant and directs plaintiff to include 14 the name in plaintiff’s amended complaint.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint 2 on or before February 4, 2020, incorporating the facts and allegations submitted in 3 plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause. 4

5 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020. 6 7 A 8 Theresa L. Fricke 9 United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24