Bailey v. City of Olympia Prosecutor
3:22-cv-05973
W.D. Wash.May 8, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Jared J. Bailey, proceeding pro se, sued City of Olympia entities and prosecutors arising from his December 8–9, 2022 arrest and subsequent state criminal prosecution.
- Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges warrantless arrest, unlawful search, kidnapping/torture, false racial identification (complains he was labeled “black”), and asserts a mix of federal constitutional, criminal, statutory, and international-treaty claims seeking billions in damages.
- City Defendants moved to dismiss, and for judicial notice and incorporation by reference of state criminal pleadings and police reports.
- The Court granted judicial notice of the state criminal Information and Harassment No Contact Orders (public docket), but denied (without prejudice) incorporation of police incident reports.
- The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims relating to searches/seizures without probable cause without prejudice under Younger abstention; all other federal and state claims against the City Defendants were dismissed with prejudice as failing to state a claim.
- Plaintiff’s motion to add Thurston County Prosecutor Jon Tunheim and Thurston County Jail was denied; Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why claims against Thurston County should not be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of state criminal pleadings | Court should not rely on state filings to resolve civil claims | State filings and public docket are appropriate for judicial notice | Granted: Court judicially noticed the Information and NCOs and public docket |
| Incorporation by reference of police reports | Plaintiff’s complaint relies on investigative reports | City seeks to incorporate officer narratives and incident reports into the complaint | Denied without prejudice; not necessary to decide motion to dismiss |
| Fourth Amendment claims re: search/seizure | Arrest and home search were warrantless and unlawful; seek federal relief | Federal court should not enjoin or decide issues that would interfere with ongoing state criminal case | Dismissed without prejudice under Younger abstention (federal court must abstain) |
| Fourth Amendment excessive force claim | Plaintiff alleges assault/torture during arrest | Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing force was excessive or unreasonable | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim |
| Federal statutory/treaty claims (18 U.S.C. §§241–242, False Claims Act, treaties, etc.) | Various criminal statutes, False Claims Act, and treaties provide relief | Many asserted statutes/treaties do not create private causes of action or do not apply | Dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or failing to state a claim |
| Motion to amend to add Tunheim and Thurston County Jail | Add prosecutor and jail as defendants for prosecuting and detaining Plaintiff | Proposed additions lack factual support and appear intended to harass | Denied; adding Tunheim is in bad faith and no plausible claim against jail |
Key Cases Cited
- Koala v. Khosla, 931 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (documents incorporated by reference may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
- United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (when a complaint references a document extensively, the document may be incorporated by reference)
- Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, 759 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2014) (court need not accept allegations that contradict matters subject to judicial notice)
- Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusory allegations contradicted by referenced documents need not be accepted)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (operative complaint is the amended complaint)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (analyzed scope of constitutional claims and appropriate constitutional provision)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims under Fourth Amendment are judged by objective reasonableness)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings)
- Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018) (Younger abstention elements)
- Beltran v. State of California, 871 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (dismissal required when Younger abstention applies)
- Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (federal relief that would enjoin state criminal proceedings has preclusive effect)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires municipal policy or custom)
- Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (§ 1983 enforces rights independently secured; statutes must create enforceable rights)
- Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action under certain federal criminal statutes)
- Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2007) (treaties are judicially enforceable only if self-executing and conferring individual rights)
- Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend unless amendment would be futile)
- Chudacoff v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 649 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 15(a) amendment standard)
- Blinka v. Washington State Bar Association, 109 Wash. App. 575 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (no private right of action under state constitution)