Malone v. King County Jail

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 WINTER LAVON MALONE, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-818-JLR-MLP 10 v. ORDER DECLINING SERVICE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 11 KING COUNTY JAIL, 12 Defendant. [13] 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff Winter Lavone Malone 16 (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a pretrial detainee at the King County 17 Jail in Seattle, Washington. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint requests that the King County Jail 18 make naloxone available to its inmates. (See dkt. # 6-1 at 4.) 19 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s proposed complaint and identified several deficiencies 20 Plaintiff must correct before the Court orders service. As explained below, the Court DECLINES 21 to direct that Plaintiff’s complaint (dkt. # 6-1) be served and GRANTS him leave to file an 22 amended complaint. [23] 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 In his proposed complaint, Plaintiff identifies a single count in which he complains that 3 the King County Jail does not have naloxone available to inmates at the facility in case of an 4 overdose. (See dkt. # 6-1 at 3-4.) As relief, Plaintiff requests $4 million dollars to make naloxone 5 available to inmates at the King County Jail, and other jails, for use in the event of inmate 6 overdoses. (Id. at 9-10.) 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 A. Legal Standards 9 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, the Court is required to screen 10 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or 11 employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the 12 complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 13 may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 15 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 16 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in order for a pleading to 17 state a claim for relief it must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 18 jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, 19 and a demand for the relief sought. The statement of the claim must be sufficient to “give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley 21 v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The factual allegations of a complaint must be “enough to 22 raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , [23] 1 555 (2007). In addition, a complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible 2 on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 3 In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must show: (1) that 4 he suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute; and 5 (2) that the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See 6 Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff 7 must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused, or personally participated 8 in causing, the harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350 , 9 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The 10 inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each 11 individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional 12 deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 B. Deficiencies 14 Plaintiff’s proposed complaint, albeit noble, is generally deficient because it fails to 15 identify a viable defendant for his claim and it alleges no facts demonstrating he is entitled to any 16 form of relief pursuant to § 1983. 17 First, the Court observes that Plaintiff has raised his sole claim against the King County 18 Jail. (See dkt. # 6-1 at 3.) Plaintiff is advised the King County Jail, as a government unit of King 19 County, is not a proper Defendant in this action. See Nolan v. Snohomish County, 59 Wn. App. 20 876, 883 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (“[I]n a legal action involving a county, the county itself is the 21 only legal entity capable of suing and being sued.”). A local government unit or municipality, 22 such as King County, can be sued as a “person” under § 1983. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of 23 City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). However, a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a 1 municipality under § 1983 must identify a municipal “policy” or “custom” that caused his or her 2 injury, and must demonstrate that the municipality, through its deliberate conduct, was the 3 “moving force” behind the injury alleged. Bryan Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 , 403-404 4 (1997) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 ). Consequently, if Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim 5 against King County, he will need to clearly identify the custom or policy that he intends to 6 challenge, and he will need to set forth clear and specific facts demonstrating that the challenged 7 custom or policy caused him constitutional harm. 8 Next, Plaintiff’s claim requests only that naloxone be made available to inmates at the 9 King County Jail (See dkt. # 6-1 at 4.) At this stage, Plaintiff’s request fails to articulate a 10 cognizable claim pursuant to § 1983 as Plaintiff fails to allege that he has personally suffered a 11 constitutional deprivation and that such violation was caused by a person acting under color of 12 state law. See Crumpton, 947 F.2d at 1420 ; Arnold, 637 F.2d at 1355 . To proceed, Plaintiff is 13 advised that he must specifically identify an individual and/or entity whom he alleges caused him 14 harm, he must identify the constitutional right he believes was violated by the conduct of that 15 individual and/or entity, and he must allege specific facts demonstrating how that individual 16 and/or entity personally participated in causing him constitutional harm. 17 Finally, though not entirely clear, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not appear to 18 indicate whether he has sought to exhaust any of his administrative remedies with regard to his 19 request that naloxone be made available to King County Jail inmates. (See dkt. # 6-1 at 4.) The 20 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 provides that: “No action shall be brought with respect to 21 prison conditions under [ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in 22 any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available 23 are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits 1 concerning prison life, whether such actions involve general conditions or episodes, whether they 2 allege excessive force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in 3 grievance proceedings, such as money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). 4 Thus, Plaintiff is advised that his claim will be subject to dismissal, without consideration of the 5 merits, if he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to such claim. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) The Court declines to direct that Plaintiff’s complaint be served on Defendant 9 because of the deficiencies identified above. However, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an 10 amended complaint curing the noted deficiencies within thirty (30) days of the date on which 11 this Order is signed. The amended complaint must carry the same case number as this one. If no 12 amended complaint is timely filed, or if Plaintiff fails to correct the deficiencies identified above, 13 the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and [14] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 15 Plaintiff is advised that an amended pleading operates as a complete substitute for an 16 original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Hal Roach 17 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended), 18 cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Thus, any amended complaint must clearly identify the 19 Defendant(s), the constitutional claim(s) asserted, the specific facts which Plaintiff believes 20 support each claim, and the specific relief requested. 21 (2) The Clerk shall note this matter on the Court’s calendar for September 8, 2023, 22 for review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. [23] 1 (3) The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms so that he may file an 2 amended complaint. The Clerk is further directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to 3 the Honorable James L. Robart. 4 Dated this 7th day of August, 2023. [5] A 6 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge