Message
×
loading..

Maxwell v. King County Jail ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JAMES H. MAXWELL, JR., CASE NO. C22-580 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 v. 13 KING COUNTY JAIL and CITY OF SEATTLE, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Chief 18 Magistrate Judge Creatura and Plaintiff’s Objections to it. (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14.) Having reviewed 19 the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections, and the relevant portions of the record, 20 the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DISMISSES this action without prejudice 21 and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as MOOT. 22 23 24 1 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS 2 The Report and Recommendation succinctly summarizes the allegations relevant to 3 Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims alleged against King County Jail and the City of Seattle. 4 (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.) In essence, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have violated his First Amendment 5 rights by failing to provide him full vegetarian meals in accordance with his sincerely-held 6 religious beliefs. (See id.) 7 The Report and Recommendation correctly notes that despite being given multiple 8 attempts to amend his complaint, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged claims against the City and 9 Jail. First, Plaintiff has not “allege[d] facts that implicate the two named defendants in the 10 alleged deprivation of his religious diet” as required under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City 11 of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). (Dkt. No. 13 at 4.) Second, Plaintiff has not made 12 allegations sufficient to show an intentional deprivation of his religious diet. (Id. at 4-5.) 13 In his objections, Plaintiff has not identified any error in the Report and 14 Recommendation’s conclusions. Plaintiff writes in full: 15 Under the U.S. Amendment One, I state a claim of right to religion right of belief [sic]. That King County Jail fail[s] to offer a full vegetarian meal. By [which it] mean[s] to be 16 free of animal parts, as meat or eggs, cheese, milk, etc. I hope the Court will grant the Amendment to the First Amendment right to religious 17 meals of belief [sic]. 18 (Dkt. No. 14.) While the Court understands Plaintiff’s objections, they do not address either of 19 the flaws in the proposed amended complaint identified in the Report and Recommendation. 20 Accepting the proposed amended complaint would be futile because it does not address the flaws 21 identified in the Report and Recommendation and does not contain actionable claims under the 22 First Amendment. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Objections and ADOPTS the Report 23 and Recommendation in full. 24 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection, ADOPTS the Report and 3 Recommendation, DISMISSES this action without prejudice, and DENIES AS MOOT 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 5 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff, Chief Magistrate Judge 6 Creatura and all counsel. 7 Dated September 7, 2022. A 8 9 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:22-cv-00580

Filed Date: 9/7/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/4/2024