Opinion
2:23-cv-01243-JLR-BAT
09-22-2023
RONNIE L. HICKS, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF NAVOS, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relief regarding the conditions of his confinement at Navos House. Dkt. 1. The Court reviewed the complaint and directed Plaintiff' to file an amended complaint no later than September 20, 2023, that addresses the deficiencies noted by the Court. Dkt. 5. The Court advised Plaintiff the failure to file an amended complaint by that date would result in a recommendation the case be dismissed.
Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or any other pleading, the Court recommends the case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff's current complaint names a single Defendant: “Director of Navos.” Dkt. 4 at 3. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights to “fresh air” by “keeping him confined inside for weeks.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff also attached two different written “1983 Civil Rights Complaint” one listing Mr. Hicks as the sole Plaintiff and the other listing Tamaraja DeGross, Alex Galgano and Sleema Character as co-plaintiffs.
To sustain a § 1983 action, Plaintiff must show (1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or federal law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff's current complaint fails to set forth any facts that establish the Director of Navos house engaged in acts that violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights, and accordingly fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff's current complaint also lists co-plaintiffs. Under the Court's local rules, only attorneys admitted to the practice of law may represent a party. See Local Rules W.D. Wash GR 2. Plaintiff is not a lawyer and has no authority to represent persons other than himself. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, Washington State law prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, which occurs, among other instances, when “[a] nonlawyer practices law, or holds himself or herself out as entitled to practice law.” RCW 2.48.180(2)(a). Because Plaintiff is not an attorney, his amended complaint may only be brought on his behalf and shall not include other Plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends the complaint in this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL
This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore, Plaintiff should not file a notice of appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until the assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case.
Objections, however, may be filed no later than October 6, 2023. The Clerk should note the matter for October 6, 2023, as ready for the District Judge's consideration. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.