Junaid Ramsey Hall v. Pierce County, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 JUNAID RAMSEY HALL, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05747-RAJ-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 13 Noting Date: December 2, 2025 Defendants.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Plaintiff Junaid Ramsey Hall, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a Proposed Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1. Prior to the Court’s initial screening of the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint along with a Proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 12.

21 On October 6, 2025, this Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found it was deficient. Dkt.

22 15. As Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court declined to order service of the Complaint. Id. However, the Court provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by November 6, 2025, to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order. Id. at 11. The Court warned that failure to adequately address the issues identified in the Order would result in the Court recommending dismissal of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Id. 4 To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order. He has not filed a response to the Order or filed an amended complaint.1 Further, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the FAC. See Dkt. 15. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

8 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 December 2, 2025, as noted in the caption.

17 Dated this 14th day of November, 2025.

A 20 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff did, however, file an unrelated case in this district on October 24, 2025. See Hall v. Pierce Co. et al., 3:25- cv-05956-JHC-DWC.