“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully 5 pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 6 lawyers.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully 5 pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 6 lawyers.”
- affirming dismissal of frivolous complaint without leave to 20 amend
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7
AT SEATTLE
8
9 KRISTOF JANOS FABIAN, Case No. C21-1556-RSM
10
Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
v.
12
13 KING COUNTY,
14 Defendant.
15
16 I. INTRODUCTION
17 Pro Se Plaintiff Kristof Janos Fabian has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
18
in this matter. Dkt. #8. The Complaint was filed on May 3, 2022 (Dkt. #9), a Sealed Amended
19
Complaint was filed on April 6, 2023 (Dkt. #10), and a Redacted Amended Complaint was filed
20
on April 17, 2023 (Dkt. #12) (hereinafter, the “Amended Complaint”). Summonses have not yet
21
22 been issued. The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
23 and finds that it should be dismissed.
24
II. BACKGROUND
25
Mr. Fabian has filed this action against Defendant King County. Mr. Fabian has a
26
criminal case pending against him in King County Superior Court, State of Washington v. Fabian,
27
28 King County Superior Court No. 19-1-06001-4 SEA (hereinafter, the “state criminal case”). Dkt.
#12 at 1. In the state criminal case, Mr. Fabian has been charged with RCW 9A.32.050(1)(B)
1
2 murder in the second degree and RCW 9A.36.021(1)(A) assault in the second degree for the
3 death of his then wife. Id. As a result of those charges, Mr. Fabian was detained and held in the
4
King County Correctional Facility (“KCCF”) from October 30, 2019, through August 13, 2020.
5
Id. at 1–2. Mr. Fabian alleges that while detained he suffered a serious injury after falling off the
6
top bunk (which he was purportedly ordered to occupy), resulting in “Fronto-Temporal
7
8 Dementia, and neck vertebrae injuries resulting in nerve channel reduction, causing balance
9 issues.” Id. at 2. Mr. Fabian also alleges that his bail was set at $2,000,000. Id. at 3. He claims
10
he had to cash his life savings to make bail resulting in significant tax liability. Id. at 2–3. A
11
trial was held in the state criminal case in October 2022 that resulted in a hung jury. Mr. Fabian’s
12
13 next trial date is set for September 6, 2023, as of the date of this Order.
14 Mr. Fabian brings four claims against the County: (1) claim for violation of the Mission
15 Statement of KCCF to treat inmates in a safe manner; (2) Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim
16
for case pending over four years after hung jury; (3) Eighth Amendment excessive bail claim;
17
and (4) Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim for denial of bail/bond reduction request. For the
18
19 reasons explained below, Mr. Fabian’s claims lie outside this Court’s limited jurisdiction and
20 therefore his case must be dismissed.
21
III. ANALYSIS
22
Once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss it prior to service if
23
it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted,” or “seeks
24
25 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
26 see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984); Yacoub v. U.S., 2007 WL
27
2745386 (W.D. Wash. 2007). This provision mandating dismissal applies to all in forma
28
pauperis actions, whether or not the Plaintiff is incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1
2 1229 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). The Court holds pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading
3 standards and liberally construes the complaint in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff.
4
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)(“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully
5
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
6
lawyers.”)(internal quotation omitted).
7
8 Despite these liberal standards, Section 1915(e) requires the Court to dismiss an in forma
9 pauperis complaint prior to service where relief cannot possibly be granted. See, e.g., Lopez, 203
10
F.3d at 1127 (Section 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in
11
forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). The district court judge may also dismiss
12
13 an action sua sponte and prior to issuance of summons where it finds that the court lacks subject
14 matter jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Franklin v. State of Or., State
15 Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). When dismissing a complaint under
16
Section 1915(e), the court gives pro se plaintiffs leave to amend unless “it is absolutely clear that
17
the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70
18
19 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of frivolous complaint without leave to
20 amend); see Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1124 (holding that district courts retain discretion to determine
21
whether to grant leave to amend when dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure
22
to state a claim).
23
Plaintiff’s claim for his injuries must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
24
25 and qualified immunity. At the outset the Court recognizes Mr. Fabian suffered serious
26 documented injuries as a result of his fall. However, Mr. Fabian does not allege that the County
27
violated any of his constitutional rights. He alleges that the County violated “the Mission
28
Statement of KCCF to treat in mates [sic] in a safe manner – excerpt from the Inmate
1
2 Informational Handbook.” Dkt. #12 at 2. This Court does not have jurisdiction over a
3 Washington resident’s claim against King County for violation of KCCF’s internal policies.
4
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain types of
5
cases. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (citation omitted),
6
rehearing denied, 140 S. Ct. 17. The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established where
7
8 (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
9 the United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of different states) and the
10
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (“diversity question”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
11
As the parties here are not diverse and KCCF’s internal policies do not present a federal question,
12
13 Mr. Fabian’s first claim lacks the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to be heard by this Court.
14 Since pro se complaints are to be liberally construed in the light most favorable to the
15 plaintiff, the Court will also analyze Mr. Fabian’s claim as if he had brought a Fourteenth
16
Amendment claim. “Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may
17
do so under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet
18
19 convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Castro v. Cty. of L.A., 833
20 F.3d 1060, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial
21
detainee bringing a conditions of confinement claim must show that the conditions under which
22
that detainee was confined “put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm.” Castro,
23
833 F.3d at 1071.
24
25 However, a Fourteenth Amendment claim must still clear the hurdle of qualified
26 immunity—Mr. Fabian’s claim falls short here and therefore must be dismissed. State officials
27
are entitled to qualified immunity unless he or she violated clearly established law of which a
28
reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727,
1
2 2732 (1982). Qualified immunity is a judicially-crafted protection for public officials who must
3 exercise judgment in their official duties. “It is an ‘immunity from suit rather than a mere defense
4
to liability.’” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01 (2001)(citation omitted ). “The district court
5
must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in
6
question, the officer objectively could have believed that his conduct was lawful.” Act
7
8 Up.!/Portland v.Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993). Here, the Court finds that no
9 reasonable jail officer would have understood that assigning Mr. Fabian, even though he was 65
10
years old at the time, to the top bunk of a bunk bed would amount to a constitutional violation.
11
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). Mr. Fabian does
12
13 not allege that he had any pre-existing conditions before being assigned the top bunk or that he
14 relayed any such conditions to KCCF or its officials. Mr. Fabian also makes no allegations about
15 King County’s treatment with regards to his injury after he fell.
16
Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims and Eighth Amendment excessive bail
17
claims must also be dismissed because the Court does not find special circumstances warranting
18
19 federal intervention before trial. Because Mr. Fabian is awaiting adjudication of his pending
20 criminal charges in King County Superior Court, his claim that his speedy trial rights and rights
21
against excessive bail have been violated would necessarily require this Court to become
22
involved in his ongoing state court criminal proceedings. Generally, the federal courts will not
23
intervene in a pending state court criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where
24
25 the danger of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
26 (1971). “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal
27
interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has
28
been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764,
1
2 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); see also Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.
3 1980). Although the Court is sensitive to the fact that Mr. Fabian has been awaiting a final
4
decision in his state criminal case for over four years, the Court does not find any extraordinary
5
circumstances which would appear to justify this Court’s intervention in his ongoing state
6
criminal proceedings especially given that a trial was held but resulted in a hung jury and that a
7
8 new trial date is imminent.
9 The Court finds that Mr. Fabian fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
10
and that the deficiencies in Mr. Fabian’s complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
11
IV. CONCLUSION
12
13 Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s
14 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) prior to
15 issuance of summons.
16
17
DATED this 28th day of April, 2023.
18
19
20
A
21
22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28