Zayas v. King County

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 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C24-1194-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte § 1915 review of Plaintiff’s civil 16 rights complaint (Dkt. No. 6). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1). On August 8, 2024, the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, U.S. 18 Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s application. (See Dkt. No. 5.) Summons has not yet issued. 19 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court “at any time” to the 21 extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 22 seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 23 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 24 requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 25 relief.” However, to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 26 a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that 1 is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Sufficient factual allegations 2 must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 3 544, 555 (2007). 4 Plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 targets King County and Judge Adrienne McCoy 5 (“Defendants”). (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts Defendants removed her children without 6 her consent or legal authority, thereby depriving Plaintiff of her right “to be free from excessive 7 interference with her family relationships and to due process.” (Id. at 4–5.) Last year, Plaintiff 8 filed a similar complaint alleging that the Superior Court of King County, a King County judge, 9 and a law enforcement official unlawfully removed her daughter from her custody and issued a 10 dependency order to place her daughter in the foster care system. See Zayas v. King County, 11 Case No. C23-1279-JCC, Dkt. No. 5 at 3–4 (W.D. Wash. 2023). 12 In that complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the defendants used defective court forms and 13 misapplied state law. See generally id. Citing the relevant immunities,1 the Court issued a minute 14 order requiring Plaintiff to either provide facts to overcome those immunities or name defendants 15 not subject to those immunities. Id. at Dkt. No. 6 at 3. When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court 16 dismissed her case. Id. at Dkt. No. 11. The instant complaint appears similar to the last. Her 17 argument, much like the last, is thus conclusory and fails to state a facially plausible claim for 18 relief, in light of relevant immunities. 19

20 1 Judges have absolute immunity for any acts they perform that relate to the “judicial process.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). Absolute immunity only fails to attach to judicial 21 officers when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, the King County Superior Court is 22 exempted from the majority of claims against judicial officers acting in their official capacity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 366 (9th Cir. 2004). Lastly, 23 government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, which “shields government officials 24 from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 25 F.3d 800, 824 (9th Cir. 2013). To pierce that immunity, the “contours of the [violated right] must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates 26 that right.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987)). 1 Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), the Court DISMISSES the 2 instant complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.2 3 4 DATED this 12th day of August 2024.

6 A 7 8 John C. Coughenour 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 Typically, the Court will dismiss a claim without leave to amend if “it is absolutely clear that 23 no amendment can cure the [complaint’s] defects.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Given the frivolousness of this complaint, and in light of the 24 clear instruction provided in response to prior filings, see, e.g., Zayas v. King County, Case No. 25 C23-1279-JCC, Dkt. No. 6 at 3 (W.D. Wash.), the Court finds that further amendment would be futile and that a dismissal with prejudice is warranted here. 26