Alem v. Diaz

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE EZRA ALEM, CASE NO. C22-0513-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. ADRIAN DIAZ, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 21, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that the complaint be reviewed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) before the issuance of a summons. (Dkt. No. 4.) Upon review, this Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court gave Plaintiff 21 days to cure the complaint’s defects by alleging facts that, if true, would show that (1) the conduct at issue violated clearly established law; (2) Chief Diaz participated in, directed, or knew of and failed to prevent the challenged conduct; and (3) Prosecuting Attorney Satterberg was not acting as an officer of the court during the challenged conduct. (Id. at 2–3.)

24 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint curing these defects. Instead, he filed a motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 8), a request for oral argument (Dkt. No. 9), and a civil cover sheet (Dkt. No. 10). In doing so, he contends that he has no way of obtaining the facts necessary to state a claim without first conducting discovery. (Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2.)1 But the Court did not ask Plaintiff to prove facts showing that he was entitled to relief—only to allege such facts. (Dkt.

3 No. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff’s contention that he needs discovery to make an adequate pleading is circular, unpersuasive, and not consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly, Rule 8.

6 Even applying the Ninth Circuit’s directive to construe pro se complaints liberally, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient facts supporting his conclusions and contains no legal theory that would overcome qualified immunity or prosecutorial immunity. (See generally Dkt. No. 6.) Further, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint when given an opportunity by the Court. (Id.) 12 For the foregoing reasons, and because it would appear based on Defendant’s contentions that amendment would be futile, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice and without further leave to amend. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

16 DATED this 16th day of May 2022.

A John C. Coughenour 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 1 Plaintiff writes that “a better and more attempt of finding the facts before the thoughts of dismissal is to be brought would potentially provide the necessary amount of proof the court would need the additional information would also provide other misconducts made by those who were under the color of the law to present other violations of police conducts and prosecutorial abuse of discretion.” (Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2.)