Humphrey v. Straube
3:22-cv-00009
D. AlaskaApr 12, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Dion K. Humphrey filed a §1983 complaint alleging deprivation of "familial integrity" under the Fourteenth Amendment, naming Renee Straube (Protective Service Specialist) and Juliette Rosado (clinical therapist) in their individual and official capacities.
- The complaint gave no factual detail about the events, timing, location, defendant conduct, or any specific injury; plaintiff stated he would supplement after subpoena/producing documents.
- Plaintiff paid the filing fee and filed several motions (for subpoena, volunteer counsel, and to supplement or admit exhibits).
- The court screened the complaint for subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to treat later docket filings as an amended complaint.
- The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to plausibly plead §1983 elements, but granted leave to amend by May 18, 2022.
- The court denied the subpoena motion as moot, denied the volunteer-attorney motion as premature, and denied the motions to supplement/admit exhibits because a complaint cannot be amended by motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a §1983 claim (state action, constitutional violation, causation) | Humphrey alleges a §1983 due-process claim for interference with parent-child/familial integrity but promised to supply facts later | Defendants contend (implicitly via screening) that complaint lacks factual allegations showing state action, specific constitutional violation, or causation | Dismissed for failure to plead §1983 elements; plaintiff must plead facts showing state action, the right violated, and causation in an amended complaint |
| Standing / subject-matter jurisdiction | Humphrey asserts a federal due-process injury but provided no concrete injury facts | Court notes plaintiff failed to allege a concrete, particularized, traceable, and redressable injury | Court found it could not determine Article III standing or subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed without prejudice |
| Capacity of defendants and available relief (individual vs official capacity) | Humphrey sued both capacities seeking damages and injunctive relief | Court applied §1983 principles distinguishing individual-capacity damages and official-capacity injunctive claims | Court instructed plaintiff on pleading requirements: show personal participation for individual liability; identify policy/official for official-capacity injunctive relief; noted official-capacity defendants cannot be sued for damages |
| Procedural requests (subpoena, volunteer counsel, supplementation/exhibits) | Sought subpoena, volunteer counsel, and to add exhibits via motion | Court observed procedural rules bar amendment by motion and appointment of counsel is not a right in civil cases | Subpoena denied as moot; volunteer counsel denied as premature; motions to supplement/admit exhibits denied for improper attempt to amend complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) (Article III standing limits and traceability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (color-of-state-law requirement for §1983)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (§1983 is remedial; discusses standards for excessive force and constitutional claims)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (requirements for a federal statute to create enforceable rights under §1983)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suit is a claim against the governmental entity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (limitations on damages against state officials in their official capacity)
- Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007) (causation in §1983; affirmative acts and omissions that cause deprivation)