1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DONALD LEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-362-JLR-MJB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In March 2006, plaintiff Donald Lee Brown presented to this Court for filing, a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed with this action in forma

pauperis. A review of plaintiff’s complaint, and the documents attached thereto, suggested that

plaintiff intended to challenge the adequacy of the health care he received while incarcerated at the

King County Jail. Plaintiff identified the State of Washington and “Jail Health Service” as the only

two defendants in this action.

On April 17, 2006, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted

and his complaint was filed. (See Dkt. Nos. 7 and 8.) On the same date, this Court issued an Order

declining to serve plaintiff’s complaint and granting him leave to amend. Plaintiff was advised therein

that his complaint was defective because (1) the State of Washington could not be sued in this § 1983

action, (2) “Jail Health Services” was not a legal entity and could not be sued as such, and (3) the

complaint contained no “Statement of Claim.” Plaintiff was further advised that in order to

adequately alleged a cause of action under § 1983, he must identify each individual whom he

believed was responsible for causing him harm, and, as to each individual, he must specifically

Case 2:06-cv-00362-JLR Document 16 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

identify the constitutional right he believed was violated by the conduct of that individual and he

must allege specific facts demonstrating that individual personally participated in causing the harm

alleged.

Plaintiff was granted thirty days within which to submit an amended complaint curing the

specified deficiencies, and was advised that his failure to timely submit an amended complaint would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. On May 17, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. However, plaintiff’s

amended complaint fails to adequately correct the deficiencies identified by this Court in its previous

Order. In his amended complaint, plaintiff identifies some individual defendants and he includes a

“Statement of Claim.” However, plaintiff fails to identify the constitutional right he believes was

violated by the conduct of each of the individuals whom he identifies as a defendant in his amended

complaint. Plaintiff also fails to allege specific facts demonstrating how each of those individuals

personally participated in causing him harm of constitutional dimension. 

When a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court may

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Because plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to adequately allege a cause of action under § 1983, this

Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00362-JLR Document 16 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2