Curt-Allen: of the family of Byron v. Lovick et al, No. 2:2010cv00609 - Document 43 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting 13 Defendant John Lovick's Motion to Dismiss by Judge James L. Robart.(MD, mailed copy of order to pltf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Curt-Allen: of the family of Byron v. Lovick et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 CURT-ALLEN: OF THE FAMILY BYRON, 11 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C10-0609JLR ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 12 v. 13 JOHN LOVICK, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Defendant John Lovick’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 16 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 13.) Having reviewed the papers 17 submitted in support and in opposition to the motion, and deeming oral argument 18 unnecessary, the court GRANTS the motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with 19 prejudice. 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Curt-Allen of the Family of Byron (“Plaintiff”) avers that on April 3, 3 2010, he was stopped by a Marysville police officer in the City of Arlington because the 4 vehicle he was driving at the time had no license plate. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 3.) When 5 the officer requested to see Plaintiff’s registration and insurance, Plaintiff informed the 6 officer that he had not given him “consent or any just power over me.” (Id.) Plaintiff 7 was then booked into the Snohomish County Corrections facility. (Id.) He claims that he 8 did not “give consent to their booking and removal of my clothes for [me] to put on their 9 jailhouse clothes and slippers.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he was placed in a booking cell 10 consisting only of a “concrete floor, concrete bench and brick walls with a steel sink and 11 toilet.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that he was denied a blanket, an ace bandage, a 12 phone call, toilet paper, and a private audience with a judge. (Id.) Plaintiff was unable to 13 sleep because he was cold and uncomfortable. (Id.) At all times, Plaintiff refused to 14 wear the clothing provided by the correctional facility. (Id.) Plaintiff admits he was 15 allowed to take a warm shower, but alleges the only purpose in allowing him to take a 16 shower was to coerce him into putting on jail garb, which Plaintiff refused to do. (Id.) 17 Plaintiff’s complaints relating to his condition during confinement could be 18 construed as a claim for deprivation of rights under color of state and federal law 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Unfortunately, Plaintiff has named every high-ranking 20 official in Washington state, as well as the United States Secretary of State and the 21 President, as being involved in the deprivation of his rights. The court cannot find any 22 basis whatsoever for a claim against individuals who were not involved in Plaintiff’s ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 1 arrest or detention. With respect to the police officers and correctional officers directly 2 involved in Plaintiff’s arrest and detention, Plaintiff fails to articulate any causes of action 3 against them. The best the court can do is interpret Plaintiff’s factual statement as an 4 attempt to set forth a claim for violation of his substantive due process rights under the 5 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6 II. ANALYSIS 7 A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard 8 When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 12(b)(6), the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving 10 party. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 11 2005). The court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable 12 inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 13 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 14 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 15 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 16 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 17 956 (9th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 19 for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on the lack 20 of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable 21 legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In 22 the event the court finds that dismissal is warranted, the court should grant the plaintiff ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 1 leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 2 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 B. Due Process Claims 4 In 1979, the United States Supreme Court held in Bell v. Wolfish that “under the 5 Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in 6 accordance with due process of law.” 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). For the act to be 7 considered unconstitutional punishment, it (1) must cause the detainee to suffer some 8 harm or “disability,” and (2) the purpose of the governmental action must be to punish 9 the detainee. Id. at 538 (“A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the 10 purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate 11 governmental purpose.”); see also Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 12 2008). The Court has also held that corrections administrators “should be accorded wide13 ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their 14 judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional 15 security.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 547. The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that 16 “[l]egitimate, non-punitive government interests include ensuring a detainee’s presence at 17 trial, maintaining jail security, and effective management of a detention facility.” Jones 18 v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004). 19 Here, Plaintiff alleges he was cold and uncomfortable because he refused to wear 20 the jailhouse clothing that the correctional facility required him to wear. Even assuming 21 all of Plaintiff’s allegations are true, the “disability” suffered by Plaintiff was the result of 22 his refusal to cooperate in the booking process at the correctional facility. The court can ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 4 1 find no authority for the allegation that a correctional facility may not require its inmates 2 to don clothing provided by the facility. Nor does the court find that Plaintiff’s state of 3 being cold and uncomfortable rises to the level of having suffered a harm or disability at 4 the hands of the correctional facility. The court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim 5 against any of the defendants directly involved in his arrest1 and booking. The court 6 finds there is no factual or legal allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint that can overcome the 7 deference that is accorded a correctional administrator in the “adoption and execution of 8 policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 9 discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Jones, 393 F.3d at 931. 10 11 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant 12 to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 13), and dismisses 13 Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 Aside from Plaintiff’s allegations that he was arrested “without his consent,” he does not seek any relief relating to the arrest. His injuries—numbness to his large toes and right 22 heel—relate to his confinement; not his arrest. (Compl. at 7.) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 5 1 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2010. 2 4 A 5 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
