“[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: 12 procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for 13 14 damages actions to prevent unjust results.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: 12 procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for 13 14 damages actions to prevent unjust results.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
ABRYEL MICHOLE-MEENA WILDER, et
8
al., Cause No. C21-0324RSL
9
Plaintiffs,
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
10
v. DEFINITE STATEMENT
11
WASHINGTON STATE, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14 On March 10, 2021, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and
15 her complaint and request for injunction was accepted for filing. The complaint identifies six
16
individual and two entity plaintiffs (Dkt. # 5 at 1-3) and an unknown number of defendants. In
17
the section of the form complaint where defendants are listed, plaintiff identifies the Washington
18
State Administrative Office of the Courts, Envision Law Firm, the court-appointed Special
19
Advocates at CASA, and the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. Dkt.
20
21 # 5 at 13. Attachments to the form complaint include a printed list of state government agencies
22 with asterisks near a handful of names plus a second list of twenty-nine individuals and entities.
23
Dkt. # 5-2 and # 5-3. Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and
24
RCW 42.92, et seq.,1 with cross references to pages attached to the complaint, some of which
25
26
1 The Court has been unable to locate the cited provisions of the Revised Code of Washington.
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 mention various state laws. Dkt. # 5 at 5.
2
The factual bases for plaintiff’s claims are not entirely clear given her attachment of
3
seventy-two pages of tort claim forms, correspondence, and narrative that includes factual
4
assertions, a purported transcript, and a chronology.2 It appears, however, that plaintiff is
5
challenging the following conduct:
6
7 the Fife Police Department’s failure to investigate an anti-harassment complaint made
8 by a person named Ashanae against Lauren Lozada in early 2019;
9
interference with service of process on a person named Cameron by the Tacoma Police
10
Department, the Fife Police Department, Lauren, and Ashanae;
11
the unjust allocation of public defender resources and the withdrawal of counsel when
12
appointed to defend an unspecified charge;
13
14 entry of a protective order in favor of Lauren and against plaintiff;
15 the City of Fife’s misdesignation of plaintiff as “Black” when she is Canadian Native
16
and Creole;
17
officers’ false statements about plaintiff, resulting in a prosecutor’s presentation of that
18
information to a judge;
19
20 the failure to give timely notice of a court date;
21 disputes with neighbors and the Home Owner’s Association regarding boundary line
22 issues, communication failures, unsupervised dogs, selective enforcement of the association
23
bylaws, and unwanted physical contact;
24
25
26 2 Many of the attached documents were also attached to a complaint accepted for filing on
February 26, 2021, in C21-0206RSL.
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 state court dependency, custody, and alimony determinations on the grounds that they
2 violated the U.S. Constitution and state law;3
3
abusive behavior on the part of Chiae Wilder, plaintiff’s ex-husband, including
4
compelling her into forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.4
5
The basis for plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is even less clear, relying almost
6
7 entirely on the attached narratives describing past wrongs and injuries. Dkt. # 5 at 12. Instead of
8 identifying the relief requested, plaintiff again cites to the attached narratives and lists a series of
9
claims, including assault and battery, outrage, sexual harassment, etc. Dkt. # 5 at 13.
10
The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28
11
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see
12
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), finds that plaintiff’s
13
14 complaint is deficient for the following reasons:
15 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the
16
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint will be dismissed unless it
17
states a cognizable legal theory that is supported by sufficient facts to state a “plausible” ground
18
for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Shroyer v. New Cingular
19
20
21 3 The seemingly incomplete documents at pages 23-37 of Dkt. # 5-4 and pages 5-9 of Dkt. # 5-7
22 appear to have been drafted as an appeal of the state court custody determinations. Plaintiff argues that
the custody determinations deprived her of her constitutionally protected relationship with her children,
23 violated her due process rights, interfered with her First Amendment right to practice her religion with
her children, and constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
24
4 Attachment D to plaintiff’s complaint also contains a single-spaced documents purporting to be
25
a communications with the Office of Professional Responsibility at the U.S. Department of Justice
26 raising more than a hundred additional concerns and complaints involving various individuals and
entities as “involved parties.” Dkt. # 5-4 at 12-22.
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). All well-pleaded allegations are
2
presumed to be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re
3
Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013). Although a complaint need
4
not provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere
5
speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The vast majority of the
6
7 named defendants are identified only in lists, with no mention in the body of the complaint or in
8 the attached letters and narratives. These defendants - and the Court - would have to guess what
9
acts they are supposed to have committed and how those acts relate to, much less establish, a
10
§ 1983 claim, the criminal act of providing or obtaining forced labor, or a violation of RCW
11
42.92, et seq. At a bare minimum, Rule 8(a) mandates that plaintiff “give the defendant fair
12
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
13
14 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The complaint fails to serve this vital
15 purpose as to most of the named defendants.
16
2. With regards to defendants who are mentioned in the narratives attached to the
17
complaint, it is virtually impossible to discern any set of facts which could give rise to liability
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and RCW 42.92, et seq.
19
20 3. To the extent plaintiff is seeking review of the state court’s judgments and
21 determinations in the underlying custody disputes, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
22 under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and
23
Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine arises from 28
24
U.S.C. § 1257 which grants jurisdiction to review a state court judgment in the United States
25
Supreme Court and, by negative inference, prohibits lower federal courts from doing so.
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 Kougasian v .TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
4. To the extent plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chiae
3
Wilder, Envision Law Firm, CASA advocates, Chong Sun (Kim) Wilder, Anthony Scott
4
Marlow, Adriana Tejeda (Peters), and the other individuals and private corporations/associations
5
identified in the attachments, she has not alleged state action in support such a claim. Nor can
6
7 § 1983 be used to vindicate rights created by state law.
8 5. To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against one or more prosecutors, they are
9
immune from liability under both the common law and § 1983 for conduct occurring within the
10
scope of their duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-25 (1976).
11
A prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which
12
suits to bring and in conducting them in court. The public trust of the prosecutor's
13 office would suffer if he were constrained in making every decision by the
14 consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a *425 suit for damages.
Such suits could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will
15
transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and
16 malicious actions to the State's advocate. Cf. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 348,
17 20 L.Ed. 646; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, 87 S.Ct., at 1217. Further, if the
prosecutor could be made to answer in court each time such a person charged him
18
with wrongdoing, his energy and attention would be diverted from the pressing
19
duty of enforcing the criminal law.
20
Id. at 424-25. Plaintiff’s claims as they relate to the prosecutor’s handling of the 2019 charges
21
22 against her are therefore barred.
23 6. To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against judicial officers, “[i]t has long been
24
established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts ‘done by them in the
25
exercise of their judicial functions.’” Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008)
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1871)). Judicial immunity is “absolute”
2
in that it protects the decisionmaker from exposure to the litigation process in its entirety: the
3
official is not only free from the risk of a damage award, but also free from suit. Saucier v. Katz,
4
533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). “[V]arious forms of immunity, including . . . judicial, reflect a policy
5
that the public is better served if certain public officials exercise their discretionary duties with
6
7 independence and without fear of the burdens of a civil suit for damages.” Schrob v. Catterson,
8 967 F.2d 929, 937 (3rd Cir. 1992). Immunity is particularly appropriate in situations, such as
9
this, where procedural or substantive errors can be challenged through a motion for
10
reconsideration and/or on appeal: resort to a separate § 1983 action is unnecessary. Mitchell v.
11
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 522-23 (1985) (“[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting:
12
procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for
13
14 damages actions to prevent unjust results.”). Thus, any claim against a judicial officer for his or
15 her custody or protective order determinations is barred.
16
7. Finally, plaintiff Abryel Michole-Meena Wilder is the only person to sign the
17
complaint and request for injunction. There is no indication that Ms. Wilder is an attorney or
18
otherwise able to represent the seven other named plaintiffs in this matter.
19
20
21 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue a summons in this matter.
22 Plaintiff may have a viable claim against one or more of the named defendants, but, if so, they
23
are well and truly hidden amongst the sprawling narrative set forth in the attachments to the
24
complaint. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before April 13, 2021, an amended
25
complaint which clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which each named defendant is
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE
1 accused and how those acts violated plaintiff's legal rights. The key to filing an acceptable
2
amended complaint will be providing enough facts about the conduct of each defendant that he,
3
she, or it has sufficient notice to mount a defense and from which one could plausibly infer that
4
plaintiff has a viable legal claim and a right to relief against each defendant. The amended
5
complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to timely file an amended
6
7 complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal of this action.
8
9
The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on
10
the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, April 16, 2021.
11
12
Dated this 12th day of March, 2021.
13
14
Robert S. Lasnik
15 United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER REQUIRING A MORE