Massey v. MultiCare Health System

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 LORI ANNA MASSEY, CASE NO. C20-5922JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING v. COMPLAINT MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff Lori Anna Massey’s complaint against Defendants MultiCare Health System and Allenmore Hospital. (Compl. (Dkt. # 16).) The court previously granted Ms. Massey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 15.) For the reasons below, the court dismisses Ms. Massey’s complaint (Dkt. # 16) without prejudice and with leave to amend. // // 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 Notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to a mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal to the extent that it (1) “is frivolous or malicious,” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 7 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).

11 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief.

13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 14 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

17 Ms. Massey, a citizen of California, alleges that when she went to Allenmore Hospital’s emergency room in Tacoma, Washington to receive care, a hospital security guard, a nurse, and a Pierce County Sheriff’s deputy “attempted to murder” her, interfered with her rights, assaulted her, and battered her, causing her serious injuries.

21 (Compl. at 2, 4-5.) She alleges that Defendants are liable for their employees’ conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior for “tort claims” and for “professional negligence.” (See Compl. at 6-8.)

3 Ms. Massey’s alleged injuries, however, occurred in April 2010—more than ten years before she filed her complaint. (See Compl. at 4-5.) As a result, the statutes of limitations for her claims have long since expired. See RCW 4.16.080(2) (three-year statute of limitations for any action alleging “injury to the person or rights of another”); RCW 4.16.100(1) (two-year statute of limitations for an action alleging assault or assault and battery). Ms. Massey alleges that the statute of limitations does not bar this action because there is no statute of limitation for “serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.” (Compl. at 4.) She also alleges that the statute of limitations can be “avoided or eliminated altogether” if “serious crimes and/or permanent mental or physical injuries have occurred.” (Id.) Criminal statutes of limitations, however, do not apply in this civil case, and Ms. Massey does not explain how her ability to bring a lawsuit was delayed by her injuries. See Massey v. Thomas, No. C19-5453RBL, 2019 15 WL 2450891 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 12, 2019) (dismissing, on statute of limitations grounds, claims by Ms. Massey based on conduct that allegedly occurred in 2005).

17 Because Ms. Massey’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, dismissal without prejudice and with leave to amend is appropriate. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”).

22 // 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the court DISMISSES Ms. Massey’s complaint (Dkt.

3 # 16) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Ms. Massey chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do so within 21 days of the date of this order.

6 Dated this 19th day of October, 2020.

A 9 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge