Shakir v. City of Tacoma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 ZAKEE SHAKIR, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05879-BHS 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CITY OF TACOMA, et al., Noting Date: November 12, 2024 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Zakee Shakir has filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. Dkt. 5. After careful consideration of the IFP Application, the governing law and the balance of the record, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 18 (1) Because Plaintiff does not appear to have funds available to afford the $405.00 filing fee, Plaintiff financially qualifies for IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

20 Therefore, the Court recommends GRANTING Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Dkt. 5); and 21 (2) It is unclear to the Court if Plaintiff has named the City of Tacoma as a Defendant in this action. Specifically, while the caption of the Proposed Complaint names “City of Tacoma a municipal corporation” as a Defendant (see Dkt. 5-1 at 1), Plaintiff only names Tacoma Police Officer Jonathon Dougles as a Defendant in the Defendant Information section of the Proposed Complaint (id. at 3).1 Further, there are no allegations set forth against the City of Tacoma in the Proposed Complaint. See id. at 4–5. To assert a claim against the City of Tacoma here, Plaintiff would need to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. E.g., Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 581 (9th Cir. 2010).

6 Plaintiff has not made such allegations against the City of Tacoma in the Proposed Complaint.

7 See Dkt. 5-1. Therefore, the Court recommends this case only be allowed to proceed against Defendant Jonathon Dougles, and that the City of Tacoma be DISMISSED.

9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on November 12, 2024, as noted in the caption.

17 Dated this 28th day of October, 2024.

A 20 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 1 The Defendant Information section of the form § 1983 Complaint expressly states, “Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the caption on the first page of the complaint.” See Dkt.

24 5-1 at 3.