Taylor v. King County
2:24-cv-02173
W.D. Wash.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Kevin Dewayne Taylor, Jr., an inmate at King County Regional Justice Center, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations by King County and jail officials.
- Taylor cites three types of claims: (1) failure to protect from inmate assault, (2) retaliation for filing grievances, and (3) violation of due process related to placement in restrictive psychiatric housing.
- The original and first amended complaints were found deficient; the Second Amended Complaint is the subject of this recommendation.
- Plaintiff named multiple defendants, including King County, supervisory officials, and individual corrections officers.
- The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended dismissal of claims against most defendants for failure to state a claim, but found some claims sufficient to proceed against Officers Ossewarde and Kirigo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect (14th Am.) | Jail staff failed to protect Taylor from assault; insufficient supervision, improper jail policy/custom. | Not yet answered/not served | Dismissed; insufficient facts, conclusory allegations. |
| Supervisory/municipal liability | Supervisors and King County failed to train or supervise and thus are liable for violations. | Not yet answered/not served | Dismissed; no facts showing knowledge, participation, or actionable policy/custom. |
| Procedural due process (14th Am.) | Moved to psychiatric unit with no hearing after reporting harassment; violated due process. | Not yet answered/not served | Dismissed as to most; allowed to proceed against Ossewarde & Kirigo. |
| Retaliation (1st Am.) | Placement in restrictive housing was retaliation for protected activity (grievances/kites). | Not yet answered/not served | Dismissed as to most; allowed to proceed against Ossewarde & Kirigo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must allege facts supporting a plausible claim, not just conclusory statements)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must raise a right to relief above speculation)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements for a § 1983 claim against state actors)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom as moving force)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal training liability)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (failure to protect claims by pretrial detainees standard)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context)