Robinson v. City of Seattle

Full title: BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jul 11, 2024

2:24-cv-01004-RSL (W.D. Wash. Jul. 11, 2024)

Opinion

2:24-cv-01004-RSL

07-11-2024

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendant.

ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER

ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On July 10, 2024, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and her complaint was accepted for filing. Plaintiff alleges that she placed a 911 call to the Seattle Police Department on June 30, 2024, regarding a public nuisance at the intersection of 3^rd Avenue and Pike Street in downtown Seattle. Despite being told that someone would espond, no officers arrived, rendering passage through the intersection dangerous and causing plaintiff harm. Plaintiff asserts that the City of Seattle failed to carry out duties owed under state law and seeks to hold it liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed

by a person acting under the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff's claim, as set forth in her complaint, is based solely on alleged violations of state law. In the absence of a violation of a right secured by the United States Constitution or other federal law, the § 1983 claim cannot succeed and is subject to dismissal.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff shall, on or before August 16, 2024, file an amended complaint that alleges that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated. Violations of state law cannot be vindicated through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court does not have original jurisdiction over such claims. The amended complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to timely file an amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal of this action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order on the Court's calendar for consideration on Friday, August 16, 2024.