“There is 8 no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a complaint that merely 9 repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”
How later courts described this case
- “There is 8 no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a complaint that merely 9 repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 DANIEL TEKLEMARIAM HAGOS, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00932-TL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
v.
PREJUDICE AND STRIKING
13
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
14 al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17
This matter comes before the Court on an order recommending review of pro se Plaintiff
18
Daniel Teklemariam Hagos’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (Dkt. No. 7) and
19
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 9). Having reviewed the relevant record
20
and the governing law, the Court DISMISSES the case with prejudice and STRIKES the motion to
21
appoint counsel.
22
23
24
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff Hagos’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted
3 because Plaintiff appears to financially qualify for that status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
4 Dkt. No. 7. In that Order, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended review of the
5 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Id. The Court is required to dismiss a case if it
6 determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which relief
7 may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).
8 Plaintiff Hagos appears to be bringing this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourth
9 Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. No. 8 at 1, 4. To properly state a claim
10 under Section 1983, a complaint must allege that (1) a person acting under color of state law
11 committed the complained-of conduct, and (2) the conduct deprived the complainant of “a right,
12 privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Edwards v.
13 Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:07-cv-05033, 2007 WL 1417311, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2007).
14 The instant complaint is substantially the same as an earlier-filed case pending before the
15 Honorable Lauren King and the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida. See 2:22-cv-00931-LK-BAT. In
16 that case, Plaintiff Hagos filed a Section 1983 complaint against most of the same defendants
17 regarding alleged violations of his rights for the same arrest at issue in the instant case. Plaintiff
18 Hagos has already been warned several months ago by this Court that any lawsuits with
19 duplicative complaints are subject to dismissal with prejudice. See 2:22-cv-00191-RSM-BAT.
20 Plaintiff Hagos also filed a request for Court-appointed counsel, in which he described
21 absolutely no efforts to retain an attorney. See Dkt. No. 9 at 2 (stating “N/A” to describe efforts
22 already made to retain an attorney). Plaintiff also provided no other information or detail to
23 support his request. See generally Dkt. No. 9.
24
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 A. Sufficiency of Complaint
3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain
4 types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (internal
5 citation omitted). The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established where (1) the
6 complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
7 United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of different states) and the
8 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
9 Plaintiff Hagos has attempted to raise claims under federal law. He has named as
10 defendants six members of the Seattle Police Department who were involved in arresting him at
11 a convenience store in January 2021. See Dkt. No. 8 at 1; Dkt. No. 8-1 at 1. He claims the
12 officers violated his “state & federal rights.” See Dkt. No. 8 at 4. Hagos claims that “1. The
13 Police fabracated [sic] The Probable Cause 2. There was no exigent circumstance 3. The Police
14 Violated The 14th Amend. Equal Protection Equal Treatment 4. The Police violated The 4th
15 Amend. Illegal Search & Seizure and Bivens Case Self Incrimination Clause.” Id. at 3. He
16 requests a no-contact order, that the officers be sentenced to a term of federal imprisonment, and
17 monetary damages. Id. at 4.
18 Plaintiff Hagos neither provides any facts regarding how the officers violated his rights
19 nor specifies what the injuries were that these officers allegedly caused. Plaintiff complains that
20 one of the officers “fabr[i]cated the probable cause by stating he got spit on while I was in the
21 back of the patrol car . . . .” Id. at 3. However, the arrest report Plaintiff Hagos filed alongside the
22 complaint explains that the officer found probable cause for robbery in the second degree after
23 speaking with a store cashier who reported that Hagos assaulted the cashier with an umbrella
24 which Hagos then took from the store. Dkt. No. 8-1 at 5. The report then details how Plaintiff
1 “spat directly into [an officer’s] face” while the officer advised Hagos of his Miranda rights. Id.
2 at 6. The officers also recovered two “illegal knives” from Hagos’ pants pocket. Id. With the
3 facts alleged, there is no evidence of any injury to Hagos, let alone any constitutional violation,
4 caused by the defendant officers. See Levi v. Alaska, 781 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming
5 sua sponte dismissal of a Section 1983 action for failure to state a claim partly on grounds that
6 the plaintiff “failed to allege any facts showing a constitutional violation”). Similarly, Plaintiff
7 Hagos has not alleged any facts that could give rise to an unreasonable search or seizure claim or
8 excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment, nor has he alleged being treated unequally
9 compared to other arrestees to justify bringing a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See
10 generally Dkt. No. 8.
11 This Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants and holds them “to less
12 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
13 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citation omitted). But a court “should not supply essential elements of
14 the [pro se] claim that were not initially pled.” E.g., Henderson v. Anderson, 2:19-cv-00789-
15 RAJ, 2019 WL 3996859, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2019) (citation and quotation omitted); see
16 also Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., 409 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1031 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“[C]ourts
17 should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants.”) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d
18 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). Also, “it is axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability
19 level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.” Muñoz v. United States,
20 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court is also mindful that, except where “it is ‘absolutely
21 clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,’ ” that a pro se
22 plaintiff should be given opportunity to amend their complaint. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d
23 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Reading Plaintiff’s complaint as
24 liberally as possible, the “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
1 rights violations are not sufficient to” avoid dismissal. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of
2 Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
3 B. Duplicative Complaint
4 As Plaintiff is aware, “[d]uplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma
5 pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).”
6 Goods v. Wasco State Prison, No. 1:19-cv-01318, 2019 WL 4670217, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25,
7 2019) (citing, inter alia, Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (“There is
8 no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a complaint that merely
9 repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”) (citations and quotation omitted). “[P]laintiffs
10 generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the
11 same time in the same court against the same defendant.” In re Perry, 734 F. App’x 533, 534
12 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier
13 case, even if now filed against new defendants, is subject to dismissal as duplicative.” Goods,
14 2019 WL 4670217, at *1 (citations omitted). Given the duplicative nature of this lawsuit, the
15 Court will DISMISS this complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
16 C. Appointment of Counsel
17 Plaintiff Hagos also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 9. Since the
18 Court is dismissing this matter with prejudice, it need not reach whether appointment of counsel
19 is appropriate. The motion is STRICKEN as moot.
20 III. CONCLUSION
21 For the above reasons, Plaintiff Hagos’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his
22 motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 9) is STRICKEN as moot.
23
24
1 Dated this 17th day of August 2022.
2
A
3
Tana Lin
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24