Stuart Robinson v. City of Seattle

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, 8 CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01004-RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. CITY OF SEATTLE, ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendant.

On July 10, 2024, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and her complaint was accepted for filing. Plaintiff alleges that she placed a 911 call to the Seattle Police Department on June 30, 2024, regarding a public nuisance at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Pike Street in downtown Seattle. Despite being told that someone would respond, no officers arrived, rendering passage through the intersection dangerous and causing plaintiff harm. Plaintiff asserts that the City of Seattle failed to carry out duties owed under state law and seeks to hold it liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any 23 rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 25 United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 26 48 (1988).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1 Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). When the Court pointed out that plaintiff had alleged violations of state, not federal, law, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting “[a] Right Secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated” and that jurisdiction is proper under § 1983.

The amendment does not cure the deficiency identified by the Court. A vague reference to rights afforded by federal law is insufficient to put the City on notice of what it is alleged to have done wrong. There are no facts that could support a claim that plaintiff was denied due process, that she was deprived of life, liberty, or property, that she was discriminated against, that her rights to free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom from search/seizure were violated, or that any other federal right is at issue. The facts alleged still suggest only a violation of state laws and duties related to oaths of office and public nuisance. Plaintiff has simply recited the bare elements of a § 1983 claim without any facts suggesting that she has a plausible right to relief under that statute.

19 For all of the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Dated this 15th day of July, 2024.

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2