Opinion
CASE NO. C19-870-RAJ
12-10-2019
MICHAEL SEVILLE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. # 20) and ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 16).
On June 24, 2019, Judge Tsuchida issued an Order declining to serve Plaintiff's Complaint but granting leave to amend. Dkt. # 7. In the Order, Judge Tsuchida described in detail the underlying deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. # 7. Judge Tsuchida explained that the Amended Complaint should include "short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what that person did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury plaintiff suffered because of that person's conduct." Id. at 6.
On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint containing, in large part, the same underlying deficiencies as his initial Complaint. Dkt. # 12. Plaintiff once again failed to set forth specific facts to support any of his claims, relying instead on conclusory statements and generalizations. As a result, Judge Tsuchida recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. # 16.
Plaintiff appears to acknowledge the deficiencies in his Amended Complaint and objects only to Judge Tsuchida's recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiff contends that, despite Judge Tsuchida's previous Order, he now understands his pleading obligations and includes several "examples" of new factual allegations that he will incorporate in his second amended complaint, if given leave to amend. See e.g., Dkt. # 20 at ¶¶ 7, 8.
Although the Court is skeptical that further amendment will be beneficial "the standard for granting leave to amend is generous." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988). "The rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se litigant." Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). With respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Plaintiff has identified several new factual allegations in his Objections that, if properly pled, may render Plaintiff's claims viable. With respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, however, the Court agrees with Judge Tsuchida that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for retaliation and that further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed, with prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. # 20) and ADOPTS IN PART and REJECTS IN PART the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 16). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in his First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment claims only. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. The Clerk shall provide copies of this Order to the parties and Judge Tsuchida.
DATED this 10th day of December, 2019.
/s/_________
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge