Wilson v. Clallam County PUD Dist 1

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 22, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRENT-ARTHUR: WILSON, 8 Cause No. C23-5203RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 10 DEFINITE STATEMENT CLALLAM COUNTY PUD #1, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On March 17, 2023, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and 14 his complaint was accepted for filing. The complaint identifies Clallam County PUD #1 and 15 eight individuals as defendants. Plaintiff asserts claims under Title 18 of the United States Code, 16 17 attaching a proposed “Criminal Complaint” that references 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. 18 Much of the “Criminal Complaint” consists of conclusory accusations of unlawful conduct and 19 constitutional deprivations. The few facts provided suggest that plaintiff is in the midst of a 20 billing dispute with the public utility district and is in danger of having his utility service 21 interrupted. He also seems to be upset that Clallam County PUD #1 will not complete and/or file 22 23 a Form 1099-C evidencing the cancellation of his debt for electric and water service. None of the 24 individual defendants is mentioned in the complaint, but an attachment identifies defendant Lori 25 Carter as a PUD hearing officer, defendant Nicole Hartman as a PUD deputy hearing officer, 26 and defendant Chanda Halverson as a PUD customer service representative. Plaintiff seeks 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 $2,880,000 in damages calculated on a per count basis against each of the individual defendants. 2 Dkt. # 4 at 19. 3 The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see 5 Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), finds that plaintiff’s 6 7 complaint is deficient for the following reasons: 8 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the 9 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint will be dismissed unless it 10 states a cognizable legal theory that is supported by sufficient facts to state a “plausible” ground 11 for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Shroyer v. New Cingular 12 Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). All well-pleaded allegations are 13 14 presumed to be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re 15 Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013). Although a complaint need 16 not provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere 17 speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 18 The individual defendants are not mentioned in the body of the complaint. These 19 20 defendants - and the Court - would have to guess what acts they are supposed to have committed 21 and how those acts relate to, much less establish, a claim under the criminal statutes identified at 22 Dkt. # 4 at 11 or a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At a bare minimum, Rule 8(a) 23 mandates that plaintiff “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds 24 upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 25 (1957)). The complaint fails to serve this vital purpose as to the individual defendants. 26 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 With regards to the claims against Clallam County PUD #1, plaintiff’s allegations of 2 wrongdoing are generally too vague and/or conclusory to raise a plausible inference that he is 3 entitled to relief. For instance, plaintiff alleges that defendants have entered into a conspiracy to 4 “defraud and betray the Plaintiff,” but does not identify who participated in this conspiracy or 5 how plaintiff was defrauded/betrayed. Nor does he allege that he has paid all amounts due and 6 7 owing on his utility account or that PUD #1 has cancelled a debt in a way that would trigger an 8 obligation to file a Form 1099-C with the Internal Revenue Service. The fact that PUD #1 is 9 attempting to collect the current balance on a utility account does not raise an inference of 10 wrongdoing. Without more, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient under Twombly. 11 2. To the extent plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not alleged 12 state action in support such a claim. Nor can § 1983 be used to vindicate rights created by state 13 14 law. 15 3. “To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to initiate a criminal complaint against 16 defendants, the Court has no authority or power to order the relief plaintiff seeks.” Bosma v. Ace 17 Am. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 11238942, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2018). “[T]he authority to initiate 18 a criminal complaint rests exclusively with state and federal prosecutors.” Mercer v. Lexington 19 20 Fayette Urban County Gov’t., 1995 WL 222178 at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 13 1995); Sahagian v. 21 Dickey, 646 F. Supp. 1502, 1506 (W.D. Wis. 1986)). Even considering plaintiff’s pro se status, 22 the Court must dismiss a private criminal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Brown v. Macon Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2021 WL 1022749, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 17, 2021). 24 25 // 26 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue a summons in this matter. 2 Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before April 20, 2023, an amended complaint which 3 clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which each named defendant is accused and how 4 those acts violated plaintiff’s legal rights. The key to filing an acceptable amended complaint 5 will be providing enough facts that each defendant has sufficient notice to mount a defense and 6 7 from which one could plausibly infer that plaintiff has a viable legal claim and a right to relief 8 against each defendant. The amended complaint will replace the existing complaint in its 9 entirety. Failure to timely file an amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will 10 result in dismissal of this action. 11 12 The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on 13 14 the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, April 21, 2023. 15 16 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2023. 17 18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE