Lewis v. Snohomish County Sheriffs ( 2019 )

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 MICHAEL SEVILLE LEWIS, 11 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-870-RAJ 12 ORDER GRANTING v. 13 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING IN PART AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY 14 REJECTING IN PART THE SHERIFFS, et al., REPORT AND 15 Defendant. RECOMMENDATION 16 17 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Report and 18 Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, 19 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record. For 20 the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. # 20) and 21 ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 16). 22 On June 24, 2019, Judge Tsuchida issued an Order declining to serve Plaintiff’s 23 Complaint but granting leave to amend. Dkt. # 7. In the Order, Judge Tsuchida 1 described in detail the underlying deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. # 7. Judge 2 Tsuchida explained that the Amended Complaint should include “short, plain statements 3 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 4 of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what that person did or failed to do; (4) 5 how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of plaintiff’s 6 constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury plaintiff suffered because of that 7 person’s conduct.” Id. at 6. 8 On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint containing, in large 9 part, the same underlying deficiencies as his initial Complaint. Dkt. # 12. Plaintiff once 10 again failed to set forth specific facts to support any of his claims, relying instead on 11 12 conclusory statements and generalizations. As a result, Judge Tsuchida recommended 13 that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. # 16. 14 Plaintiff appears to acknowledge the deficiencies in his Amended Complaint and 15 objects only to Judge Tsuchida’s recommendation that the action be dismissed with 16 prejudice. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiff contends that, despite Judge Tsuchida’s previous Order, 17 he now understands his pleading obligations and includes several “examples” of new 18 factual allegations that he will incorporate in his second amended complaint, if given 19 leave to amend. See e.g., Dkt. # 20 at ¶¶ 7, 8. 20 Although the Court is skeptical that further amendment will be beneficial “the 21 standard for granting leave to amend is generous.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 22 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988). “The rule favoring liberality in amendments to 23 pleadings is particularly important for the pro se litigant.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). With respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise 2 and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Plaintiff has identified several new factual 3 allegations in his Objections that, if properly pled, may render Plaintiff’s claims viable. 4 With respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, however, the Court agrees 5 with Judge Tsuchida that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for retaliation and that 6 further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 7 claim is dismissed, with prejudice. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. # 20) 9 and ADOPTS IN PART and REJECTS IN PART the Report and Recommendation 10 (Dkt. # 16). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 11 12 Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an 13 amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in his First Amendment Free Exercise 14 and Fourteenth Amendment claims only. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint 15 within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a 16 cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will 17 dismiss the action with prejudice. The Clerk shall provide copies of this Order to the 18 parties and Judge Tsuchida. 19 DATED this 10th day of December, 2019. 20 21 A 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge