Satcher v. Hilier ( 2021 )

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 RICK SATCHER, Case No. 3:21-cv-05774-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON, BILL HILIER, SCOTT BLINKS, JOHN MEYER, MARK 16 MCLANE, 17 18 Defendants. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff 21 Rick Satcher (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Bill Hilier, Scott Blinks, 22 John Meyer, Mark McLane, and the State of Washington, as well as a motion to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. The Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida granted the motion to 24 proceed in forma pauperis while recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 25 Dkt. 4. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court DISMISSES the complaint. 26 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to 4 certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these 5 requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines 6 that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: “the court shall 7 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous 8 or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 9 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 12 prisoners”). 13 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 16 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 17 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 18 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 19 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 20 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 21 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 22 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 23 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 24 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 25 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges “constitutional violations [including] unlawful 26 detainment and unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5. Plaintiff claims 27 that he was held in solitary confinement for six months until he signed papers to be 1 released under duress. Id. at 6. He asserts that he was found to be “in perfect mental 2 health” after he was held in solitary confinement. Id. In support of his claims, he cites 3 his proceedings in state court, including a personal restraint petition, which was 4 ultimately denied by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-1 at 6; Dkt. 5 1-2 at 5, 9-12. 6 Plaintiff further contends that he was robbed by his attorneys, Bill Hilier and Scott 7 Blinks, who “buried [his] grandfather for two years without reporting [the] death.” Dkt. 8 1-1 at 6. He claims that Mr. Hilier, Mr. Blinks, and John Meyer “covered up crimes,” 9 stopped the investigation of the murder of Jerry More, and used the court “as a gun” 10 against his family’s head. Dkt. 1-2 at 7. Plaintiff claims that “they took away [his] 11 driver’s license” in child support court and put him in jail for six months “to cover up 12 election crimes.” Id. at 14. He describes the injury he sustained as “mental anguish due 13 to Wash [sic] State Bar Members being used as a gun against [his] familys [sic] head to 14 cover up crimes they committed [sic].” Dkt. 1-1 at 7. 15 Despite these allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 16 upon which relief may be granted. While Plaintiff makes various allegations of 17 wrongdoing by his former attorneys, he provides no factual allegations to support the 18 claims of constitutional violations he has brought before this Court, namely, unlawful 19 detainment, unlawful imprisonment, and kidnapping. Moreover, he makes no factual 20 allegations against any state government officials that support any claim of wrongdoing 21 by the State of Washington. His broad, sweeping allegations of a “court system who is 22 covering up crimes comited [sic] by Wash state Bar members” are factually unsupported 23 and insufficient to state a claim. Dkt. 1-2 at 15. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 24 complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 26 27 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 3 prejudice. Dkt. 1, 5. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) 4 days of the Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order by filing an 5 amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this 6 action prejudice. 7 DATED this 28th day of December, 2021. 8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27