a0 7 (ev 8182) 20 21 22 23 2 26 oe, ——aareren 0 me JUN 09 2009 came / femne oy EIS, coun Se Debary UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOANITA ADAMS, Plaintiff, NO. C99-1472R v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipa corporation; MARGITA DORNAY. CHIEF KEITH HAINES; OFFICER GREG VICTOR, SGT. RICHARDSON agents or officers of the City of Tukwila, TUKWILA SCHOOL TRICT; MICHAEL SILVA, STEVE SAILBURY, and JOE DUFFIE, Defendants. THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recom- mendation (hereinafter “R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton regarding the sufficiency of plaintiff Loanita Adams’ various civil claims arising from her arrest and conviction for failure to cooperate with a police officer. ‘he factual and procedural his- ORDER Page - 1 - (fp20 21 22 24 25 26 tory of this case is adequately set out in the R&R, and the court will not repeat it here. Having reviewed the R&R and the objec tions thereto, along with the relevant portions of the record, and being fully advised, the court adopts in part and rejects in part the R&R as expressed below. The R&R concludes that Ms. Adams has failed to state a claim for relief in count IV of her complaint, and recommends that the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Tukwila School District Michael Silver, Steve Salisbury, and Joe Duffie (hereinafter the “Tukwila School defendants”) be granted. The court adopts that recommendation and count IV of Ms. Adams’ complaint is, hereby dismissed with respect to these defendants The R&R goes on to note that, while defendants City of Tukwila, Margita Dornay, Keith Haines, Greg Victor, and Sergeant Richardson (hereinafter the “City of Tukwila defendants”) have not moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim, “Count IV is also deficient as to [them] for the same reasons as discussed above.” The City of Tukwila defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss in conjunction with their objections to the R&R. Because Ms. Adams’ complaint and subsequent ly-filed pleadings fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the City of Tukwila defendants are also entitled to dismissal of count IV of the complaint. ORDER Page - 2 -20 21 22 23 24 Amendment of Complaint The R&R suggests that, ailure to present a cognizable £ this matter should not presently be dismissed. Inst; the R&R suggests that Ms. Adams be given 30 days in which to amend fect in count Iv, Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 [9% Cir. 2000). The Lopez court expressed the opinion at a pro se plaintiff should be liberally granted leave to amend her pleadings, as ° pro se litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleadings than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 (citation omitted) This court concludes that Lopez does not require granting Ms. Adams an unsolicited opportunity to amend her complaint. The facts before the Lopez court a e quite distinguishable from those presented here. The pro se plaintiff in Lopez filed a complaint that failed to specifically neme certain defendants. After being given one opportunity to file an amended complaint, which also did not properly name certain defendants, Mr. Lopez was denied a sec- ond opportunity to amend, and his complaint was eventually dis~ missed. The Ninth Cire t held this to be reversible error, find- ‘The court notes that Me. Adams’ pleadings are far more sophisticated than the average pro se plaintiff is able to produce, and that the format and structure of these materials chow a basic familiarity with court procedures2072 ‘ev S, " 12 13 20 24 22 ing that the defects in the plaintiff’s com int could be easily cured. Here, count IV of Ms. Adams’ complaint is not subject to dis- niss: because all her factual alle- 1 for a formal deficiency, bu gations, taken as true, do not amount to a $1983 claim. Moreover, ted 5 Hs. Adams the whon the defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. In re- sponse, Ms. Adams filed a lengthy “Brief Summary” reciting a lit- any of facts in support of her claims. The court has reviewed those pleadings, and concludes that her basic ilure to present a claim for which relief can be granted persists. Based on Ms. Adams’ own version of the chain of events at issue, there is nothing that she could add by amendment that would change this outcome. The court is also mindful of the counterbalance to the lib- eral or forgiving treatment pro se litigants deserve with respect to amendments, which is that amendments s nould not be granted where to do so would prejudice the defendant. Eoman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). “It is of little moment that [pro se plain- tiff’s] original complaint was filed wi rout the benefit of legal counsel. Even though se litigants’ mplaints typically are to be construed liberally, it is also our rule that a pro se com- plainant must identify the civil rights allegedly violated in his complaint.” Percy v. San Francisco General Hospital, 841 F.2d4072 (ev 8i82) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 975, 980 (9 Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). In such situations, civil defendants should not be forced to submit to ongoing litiga tion that is unduly burdensome and costly. Thus, the court sees no reason to allow Ms. Adams to continue a suit she has not been able to properly substantiate. . Supplemental Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C, $ 1367(c), this court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) [of this section] +. the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3). In light of the court’s conclusion that count IV fails to state @ claim for which relief can be granted, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Adams’ state law claims. 4. Summary Judament Since the court has dismissed count IV of Ms. Adams’ com- plaint, it need not discuss the merits of the City of Tukwila de- fendants’ summary judgment motion nor the R&R’s treatment of the same.? rave ' The court notes that the combined precedential effect of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Spencer v. Kema, 523 0.8. 1 (1998), is not abundantly clear. Because the court is not reaching the summary judgment motion raising this issue, the court expresses no opinion on whether Heck would foreclose the present § 1983 action or has been vitiated by Kenna. ORDER Page = 5 =5. Conclusion Based on the foregoing discussion, the court grants the de- fendants’ motions to dismiss count IV, does not address the City of Tukwila defendants’ motion £ y judgment, and declines summa to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Adams’ state law claims. This action is, therefore, dismissed in ils entirety. DATED at Seattle, Washinaton is 8" day of June, 2000. UNITED STAYES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER Page - 6 -