The opinion
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
9 EZRA ALEM, CASE NO. C22-0513-JCC
10
Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 ADRIAN DIAZ, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14
15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 21, 2022, United States
16 Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
17 and recommended that the complaint be reviewed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) before the issuance of a
18 summons. (Dkt. No. 4.) Upon review, this Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
19 which relief could be granted and ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 6.) The
20 Court gave Plaintiff 21 days to cure the complaint’s defects by alleging facts that, if true, would
21 show that (1) the conduct at issue violated clearly established law; (2) Chief Diaz participated in,
22 directed, or knew of and failed to prevent the challenged conduct; and (3) Prosecuting Attorney
23 Satterberg was not acting as an officer of the court during the challenged conduct. (Id. at 2–3.)
24 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint curing these defects. Instead, he filed a
25 motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 8), a request for oral argument (Dkt. No. 9), and a civil cover
26 sheet (Dkt. No. 10). In doing so, he contends that he has no way of obtaining the facts necessary
1 to state a claim without first conducting discovery. (Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2.)1 But the Court did not ask
2 Plaintiff to prove facts showing that he was entitled to relief—only to allege such facts. (Dkt.
3 No. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff’s contention that he needs discovery to make an adequate pleading is
4 circular, unpersuasive, and not consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly,
5 Rule 8.
6 Even applying the Ninth Circuit’s directive to construe pro se complaints liberally, the
7 Court cannot find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hebbe v.
8 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient facts
9 supporting his conclusions and contains no legal theory that would overcome qualified immunity
10 or prosecutorial immunity. (See generally Dkt. No. 6.) Further, Plaintiff failed to file an amended
11 complaint when given an opportunity by the Court. (Id.)
12 For the foregoing reasons, and because it would appear based on Defendant’s contentions
13 that amendment would be futile, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice and
14 without further leave to amend. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.
15
16 DATED this 16th day of May 2022.
A
17
18
19
John C. Coughenour
20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24 1 Plaintiff writes that “a better and more attempt of finding the facts before the thoughts
of dismissal is to be brought would potentially provide the necessary amount of proof the court
25 would need the additional information would also provide other misconducts made by those who
were under the color of the law to present other violations of police conducts and prosecutorial
26
abuse of discretion.” (Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2.)