Thomas Oscar Cady v. Katie Wilson, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 THOMAS OSCAR CADY, CASE NO. 2:26-CV-1576-BHS-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DECLINING SERVICE 12 KATIE WILSON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff Thomas Oscar Cady, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 16 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 4, 5. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff’s 17 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to direct service and, instead, provides 18 Plaintiff the opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified herein by filing an amended pleading 19 on or before July 23, 2026. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Washington State Penitentiary, initiated this 22 action concerning conditions of confinement and medical treatment allegedly received while he 23 was a pretrial detainee at King County Jail (“KCJ”). Dkt. 5 at 1, 3. 24 1 Plaintiff organizes his complaint into three counts. Count I alleges excessive force and 2 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs arising from events that allegedly occurred at 3 KCJ. Id. at 4–7. Count II alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on 4 medical treatment Plaintiff received at Harborview Medical Center following the events at KCJ.

5 Id. at 8–9. Finally, in count III, Plaintiff alleges further deliberate indifference to serious medical 6 needs after he returned from Harborview Medical Center to KCJ. Id. at 9–10. 7 The complaint identifies different defendants in different sections of the pleading, 8 including the caption of the complaint, the defendant information section, and the heading of 9 each count for relief. Id. at 1, 3, 4, 8, 9. Further inconsistencies in defendants appear between 10 those identified in these three locations of the complaint and those discussed in the factual 11 narrative for each count. Id. at 1–10. 12 As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages and an order requiring surgery on his back. Id. at 11. 13 II. Screening Standard 14 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, the Court must screen proposed

15 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 16 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss the 17 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 18 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 19 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. 20 §1915(e)(2)(B); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Dismissal on these 21 grounds constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 22 The Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 23 97, 106 (1976). However, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

24 1 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Each allegation must be 2 simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Even pro se pleadings must raise the right to 3 relief beyond the speculative level and must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and 4 a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

5 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A 6 plaintiff must set forth specific, plausible facts to support their claims. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 7 U.S. 662, 678–83 (2009). 8 III. Discussion 9 Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds several deficiencies that must be cured 10 before Plaintiff may proceed. In particular, Plaintiff has failed to clearly and consistently identify 11 the defendants he seeks to sue throughout the complaint. In addition, to the extent the Court can 12 discern the defendants Plaintiff intends to sue, Plaintiff appears to have named several 13 defendants that are not proper defendants in this § 1983 action. 14 A. Unclear Defendant Identification

15 First, Plaintiff has not clearly and consistently identified the defendants he intends to sue 16 in this action. Throughout the complaint, Plaintiff identifies different defendants in different 17 sections of the pleading, making it difficult to determine which claims are asserted against which 18 defendants. 19 For example, in count I, Plaintiff alleges that the City of Seattle is liable for the conduct 20 at issue and expressly states that the claim is brought against the City of Seattle. Dkt. 5 at 4. 21 However, Plaintiff identifies Mayor Katie Wilson, rather than the City of Seattle, in the caption 22 and defendant-information portion of the complaint. Id. at 1, 3. Similarly, Plaintiff identifies Jail 23 Health Services and various nurses in the caption of the complaint and appears to assert claims

24 1 against those defendants in count III, but those defendants are not consistently identified 2 elsewhere in the complaint. Id. at 1, 9. Plaintiff likewise identifies three Harborview Medical 3 Center doctors in the caption, defendant-information section, and heading of count II, but the 4 factual allegations supporting that count refer generally to a single doctor and do not distinguish

5 among the conduct of three separate physicians. Id. at 1, 3, 8–9. 6 Thus, in its current form, the complaint does not clearly identify which defendants 7 Plaintiff intends to sue or which claims are asserted against each defendant. Rule 8 requires a 8 complaint to provide sufficient notice of the claims asserted and the parties against whom those 9 claims are brought. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 10 requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them”). 11 Plaintiff must therefore clearly identify each defendant he seeks to sue and must consistently 12 identify those defendants throughout the amended complaint. 13 B. Improper Defendants 14 Next, to the extent the Court can discern the defendants Plaintiff intends to sue, several of

15 the identified defendants appear to be improper defendants for a § 1983 action. 16 First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue the health services division operating within 17 KCJ, Plaintiff has not identified a legal entity capable of being sued for his claims involving 18 King County entities. “In a legal action involving a county, the county itself is the only legal 19 entity capable of suing and being sued.” See Nolan v. Snohomish County, 59 Wn. App. 876, 883, 20 802 P.2d 792 (1990)). As a result, only the primary municipality, county, or local government 21 unit (in this case, King County) may be sued in this § 1983 action and other county entities must 22 be excluded from any amended pleadings. 23

24 1 Second, Plaintiff names Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson as a defendant but alleges no facts 2 demonstrating her personal participation in any of the events described in the complaint. Dkt. 5 3 at 1, 3. Thus, it appears Plaintiff may be attempting to sue Defendant Wilson in her official 4 capacity. However, an official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the governmental

5 entity itself rather than against an individual government official. See Doe v. Lawrence 6 Livermore Nat. Lab’y, 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State 7 Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Because of this, it is not “necessary or proper to name as a 8 defendant a particular local government officer acting in official capacity.” Luke v. Abbott, 954 9 F. Supp. 202, 204 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985)). 10 Indeed, a plaintiff “cannot elect” to name government official rather than the governmental unit 11 for his § 1983 claims. Id. Accordingly, if Plaintiff intends to pursue claims against the City of 12 Seattle, he must omit claims against improper government officials and, instead, clearly identify 13 the government entity he seeks to sue and allege facts sufficient to support such a claim. 14 Third, Plaintiff appears to assert claims against Harborview Medical Center and alleges

15 that Harborview Medical Center is an entity of the State of Washington. Dkt. 5 at 8. If 16 Harborview Medical Center is a state entity as Plaintiff alleges, it would not be a “person” 17 subject to suit under § 1983. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 18 (1997); Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Thus, Plaintiff must exclude states and state entities as defendants 19 in any amended pleading. 20 Finally, the Court notes that the complaint contains additional pleading deficiencies 21 beyond those discussed above. For example, several of Plaintiff’s allegations are asserted 22 collectively against groups of individuals without clearly identifying the conduct attributable to a 23 defendant individually. However, because Plaintiff has not clearly and consistently identified the

24 1 defendants he intends to sue in this action and included improper defendants, he has failed to 2 state a claim upon which relief may be granted and must cure these defects before proceeding in 3 this action. 4 IV. Instruction to Plaintiff and the Clerk

5 Due to the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve Plaintiff’s complaint. If 6 Plaintiff intends to pursue this § 1983 civil rights action, he must file an amended complaint and 7 within the amended complaint, he must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the 8 constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the 9 right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the 10 individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific 11 injury Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 12 371–72, 377 (1976). Each claim for relief must be simple, concise, and direct. 13 In any amended pleading, Plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant he seeks to sue 14 and the claims asserted against those defendants. Plaintiff must consistently identify the

15 defendants throughout the amended complaint and clearly indicate which factual allegations and 16 causes of action are asserted against each defendant. 17 Plaintiff shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The 18 amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety, it should contain the same 19 case number, and it may not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. The 20 amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for any previously filed complaint, and not 21 as a supplement. 22 The Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether Plaintiff has cured 23 the identified deficiencies according to these instructions. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended

24 1 complaint or fails to adequately address the issues raised herein on or before July 23, 2026, the 2 undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action. 3 The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 4 civil rights complaint and for service. The Clerk is also directed to send copies of this Order

5 and Pro Se Instruction Sheet to Plaintiff. 6 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2026. 7 A 8 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24