Stevens v. United States Government

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 QUENTIN J. STEVENS, CASE NO. C21-0528-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Quentin J. Stevens’ amended complaints 16 (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 12) and motions to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 10) and for service (Dkt. No. 11). 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges that the federal government, the State 18 of Washington, the City of Seattle, the King County Sheriff’s Office, and several private 19 companies violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by using his “Aftercare Report” 20 from a 2012 hospitalization in “applications, websites, and a variety of media outlets” without 21 providing him just compensation. (See Dkt. No. 8 at 4–5.) 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 23 at any time if it fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The federal rules of civil procedure 25 provide that in order to state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain “a short and plain 26 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). At a minimum, a 2 complaint must put defendants on notice of what wrongs they allegedly committed against the 3 plaintiff. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996). While the Court liberally 4 construes a pro se complaint, see Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), it must 5 dismiss a complaint, even if filed pro se, if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient 6 facts to support a cognizable legal theory, Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013). 7 The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, but gave 8 Plaintiff leave to amend within 21 days. (Dkt. No. 7.) Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s 9 amended complaints do not cure the deficiencies previously identified by the Court. Plaintiff’s 10 amended complaints name additional defendants and allege that the defendants’ unauthorized 11 use of his “Aftercare Report” violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment rather than 12 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Compare Dkt. No. 5 at 2–5, with Dkt. 13 Nos. 8 at 2–3, 9 at 2, 12 at 2–3). Among other things, the amended complaints are still 14 conclusory and devoid of factual allegations to put the defendants on notice of what wrongs they 15 allegedly committed. 16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s amended complaints without prejudice 17 and DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel and for service (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11). 18 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case and send a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 19 DATED this 6th day of July 2021. A 20 21 22 John C. Coughenour 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24

25 26