Alemayehu v. Seattle Police Department

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] AZEB ALEMAYEHU, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01378-JNW [8] Plaintiff, ORDER [9] v. [10] SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, [11] Defendant. [13] 14 1. INTRODUCTION 15 Pro se Plaintiff Azeb Alemayehu pursues this action against Defendant 16 Seattle Police Department (SPD) in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. No. 5. After 17 reviewing the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 6, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), the 18 Court finds that Alemayehu fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 19 Rather than dismissing her case outright, however, the Court grants Alemayehu 20 leave to amend her complaint within 30 days of this Order to address the problems 21 identified below to save her case from dismissal. [23] 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 On August 30, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Azeb Alemayehu filed a Motion for Leave 3 to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (IFP) and a Proposed Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. While 4 the legal claims in the Proposed Complaint were unclear, the Proposed Complaint 5 did provide a rough picture of the factual allegations underlying those claims. In the 6 section entitled Statement of Claim, Alemayehu wrote: “Civil Right Violation, SPD 7 Entered into my Apt, my daughter opened the door.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5. Then, in a 8 ten-page handwritten attachment, Alemayehu explained in greater detail: 9 …I was at the restroom, completely naked and was ready to take a Shower… there wasn’t any towels at the restroom… when SPD, Seattle 10 Police Department Entered in my house Unlawfully, violates my Civil Right and Put my Daughter, and me in the most… traumatic Position 11 that left a Scar… The day that SPD Showed up early Morning… I was at the restroom completely Naked. SPD got in my Apartment, Stand by 12 the Hallways B/n my bed room and the restroom. I asked, requested if they perhaps step out of the door so I can put some clothes on, before I 13 speak to them, or per haps if they can give me some clothes so (illegible)… be able to wear (illegible)… Before I talk to them and answer 14 their Questions to why they are In my Apt to begin with, but they refused to do so, even though I screamed so many times . . . . Please step 15 out side from the hallways they were standing and wait for me, My daughter saw me completely naked in front of Polices, I was Forced to 16 leave the restroom and Stand up in Front of Public SPD Cameras Viewing me From every Police Stations in Washington States. She was 17 broken, Ashamed, Sad, traumatized For long time… [18] Id. at 7-16 . 19 On September 3, 2024, Alemayehu filed a Proposed Amended Complaint. 20 Dkt. No. 4. The Proposed Amended Complaint offers far less factual detail than the 21 original Proposed Complaint. It offers no “Statement of Claim” and provides almost 22 no factual allegations. In lieu of the ten-page attachment from the initial Proposed 23 Complaint (quoted above), it contains only one handwritten page, reading: “I was at 1 the rest room, I didn’t know SPD was standing by the door on the hall way waiting 2 for me, there was (illegible)… any towels at the restroom, I asked, Pleaded, begged 3 them if they actually can hand me to.” Dkt. No. 4-1 at 10. It also contains several 4 attachments, such as a Federal Bar Association brochure, none of which appear 5 relevant. See generally Dkt. No. 4-1. 6 On September 5, 2024, the Honorable Judge S. Kate Vaughn granted 7 Alemayehu’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 5. As a 8 result, the Amended Complaint was filed on September 5, 2024, formally initiating 9 this action. Dkt. No. 6. 10 On September 12, 2024, Alemayehu once again submitted another Proposed 11 Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 7. This one contains more detail than the preceding 12 one. Seeking between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 in monetary damages, it 13 alleges that “SPD squizes the handcuffs on my wrists until my blood flooded on the 14 ground and dripped all over the ground.” Id. at 4, 10 . It further alleges: 15 “Seattle Police department destpached polices in my resident at [address] made my 12 years old daughter open the front door, I was in 16 the restroom completely naked, there wasn’t any towels, I told them that screaming out loud and asks them to step out or if they can hand me 17 some kind of cloths but they forced me to leave the restroom completely naked on camera from all over the police stations.” [18] Id. [19] However, because this new amended complaint contained the name of a [20] minor child, the Court placed it under seal as required by Federal Rule of Civil [21] Procedure 5.2(a) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and instructed Alemayehu to [23] 1 file a redacted version without that information. See Dkt. To date, Alemayehu has 2 not filed a redacted version of the proposed amended complaint. 3 3. DISCUSSION 4 When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the 5 action if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant 7 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). When reviewing 8 complaints under § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts necessarily consider only the operative 9 complaint. Here, the operative complaint is the amended complaint submitted on 10 September 5, 2024—not the original proposed complaint submitted on August 30, 11 2024, nor the later proposed amended complaint submitted on September 12, 2024. 12 See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that an 13 amended complaint supersedes the original and renders the original of no legal 14 effect). Because this Court’s § 1915(e)(2)(B) review is limited to the operative 15 complaint, the Court cannot consider the factual allegations from the initial 16 proposed complaint or later amended complaint. 17 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]leadings must be construed 18 so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Thus, a “document filed pro se is to be 19 liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held 20 to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Courts are not to “dismiss a pro 22 se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the 23 deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, [1] 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th 2 Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (per 3 curiam))). But even so, the duties imposed on the Court by § 1915(e) are 4 unwavering, and when an IFP plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be 5 granted, the action must be dismissed. Likewise, the Federal Rules require a 6 complaint to offer: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's 7 jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 8 entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 9 Here, the “Statement of Claim” in the operative complaint is blank. The only 10 factual allegations, offered in a handwritten attachment, are: “I was at the rest 11 room, I didn’t know SPD was standing by the door on the hall way waiting for me, 12 there was (illegible)… any towels at the restroom, I asked, Pleaded, begged them if 13 they actually can hand me to.” Dkt. No. 6-1 at 10. Beyond these cryptic facts, the 14 broader factual context is unclear: it is not apparent, for example, if the “rest room” 15 is in Plaintiff’s home or elsewhere. Likewise, it is not clear if SPD officers entered 16 Alemayehu’s home without consent or a valid warrant, which could plausibly raise 17 Fourth Amendment concerns. While the Court could hypothetically piece together a 18 more robust narrative of Alemayehu’s factual allegations from the inoperative 19 pleadings that Alemayehu has submitted, the Court is not authorized to do so. Only 20 the operative complaint is available for the Court’s analysis; and the allegations in 21 the operative complaint, taken alone, are not sufficient to state a claim on which 22 relief may be granted. [23] 1 Further, even setting aside the deficiencies in the complaint’s factual 2 allegations, even more problematic is the complaint’s failure to clarify a legal basis 3 for relief. As the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint states “Civil Right.” 4 Dkt. No. 6 at 3. But the complaint mentions no specific statutes or constitutional 5 rights that the Seattle Police Department allegedly violated. This silence is 6 especially problematic given the lack of clarity, discussed above, over whether 7 Alemayehu is alleging that police entered her home without consent or a valid 8 warrant, as would typically implicate the Fourth Amendment. 9 Further, the complaint makes no mention of Section 1983 or Monell, which 10 provide the appropriate legal avenues to remedy a legal wrong committed by local 11 government officials acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every 12 person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of 13 any State…, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or 14 other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, 15 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the 16 party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 17 redress…”); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that 18 to sustain a civil rights action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) he 19 suffered a violation of rights created by the Constitution or federal statute, and (2) 20 the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or 21 federal law); Segura v. City of La Mesa, 647 F. Supp. 3d 926 , 941 (S.D. Cal. 2022) 22 (explaining that a “claim under Monell is the only means of asserting a § 1983 claim 23 against a municipality”); see also City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 , 385 1 (1989) (“[A] municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the 2 municipality itself causes the constitutional violation at issue.”) (citing Monell v. 3 New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). 4 The Court thus finds that Alemayehu has failed to state a claim on which 5 relief may be granted. The Court orders Alemayehu, within thirty (30) days, to 6 submit an amended complaint that meets the following standards: 7 • In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and Local 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, the amended complaint should make no 9 mention of the names of minor children. 10 • The amended complaint must contain a clear, concise, comprehensible 11 statement of the factual allegations underlying the legal claim. This 12 should include the specific identities of any individual defendants, if 13 known; the specific wrongful acts performed by those defendants; the 14 date and place where these acts occurred; and any resulting injuries. 15 • In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), the amended 16 complaint should contain a short, plain statement of the legal right 17 whose alleged violation Alemayehu seeks to redress. 18 4. CONCLUSION 19 The Court FINDS that the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 6, fails to state a 20 claim on which relief may be granted. The Court GRANTS leave to amend the 21 complaint and ORDERS Alemayehu, within thirty (30) days of this Order, to submit 22 an amended complaint that states a claim on which relief may be granted. Failure 23 to do so will result in dismissal of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 1 It is so ORDERED. 2 Dated this 10th day of October, 2024. [3] 4 a Jamal N. Whitehead [5] United States District Judge