Washington v. Taylor

Background

Jason Levette Washington represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he stored equipment belonging to Team Lord Jesus Christ Youth Ministry at an Oakland property with the landlord’s agreement. Washington claimed that another tenant, Hakim Taylor, harassed him, damaged or moved his property, removed and improperly reinstalled locks, touched his hand, and said, “White Jesus can’t help you.” Washington believed the conduct was motivated by his religious beliefs and ministry. He also alleged that another tenant, identified as Doe 2, verbally harassed him and suggested physical consequences, and that an unidentified person, Doe 1, failed to prevent a civil-rights violation. He sought $20,946.02 in damages.

Screening standard

Because Washington was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the U.S. Marshal to serve it. The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or fails to state a legally sufficient claim. It also explained that complaints filed by people representing themselves are read liberally, and that courts generally allow an opportunity to amend unless the deficiencies cannot be cured.

Federal claims

The court identified several deficiencies:

- Washington invoked 18 U.S.C. § 241, a criminal civil-rights conspiracy statute. The court held that this statute does not create a private right to sue, meaning a private plaintiff cannot use it to obtain damages in a civil case. - To bring constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted under color of state law, meaning they acted as state officials or in circumstances legally treated as state action. The court found that Washington had not shown that Taylor or the other defendants were state actors. Private conduct, even if wrongful, generally is not covered by § 1983. - Washington invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which can impose liability on a person who knows of an impending § 1985 violation but fails to prevent it. The court stated that a § 1986 claim requires a valid § 1985 claim and found that Washington did not allege what Doe 1 knew or that Doe 1 had the power to prevent the alleged wrong. - The court said that religious hostility can support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), but found that Washington had not alleged facts showing a conspiracy. The complaint described an eviction by a property manager and resulting property damage rather than facts establishing an agreement between two or more people to deny equal protection. The court also noted that a conspiracy claim could not be brought against Doe 1 alone because a conspiracy requires at least two people.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

Washington’s claims for property damage, assault, and battery arose under state law. The court found that Washington had not shown diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity—each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant—and more than $75,000 in controversy. The court therefore stated that the state-law claims likely belonged in state court.

Disposition

The court did not authorize service of the complaint or enter a final dismissal in this order. Instead, because Washington was representing himself, it allowed him to amend the complaint to try to cure the deficiencies. Alternatively, he could file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice to filing a state-court lawsuit asserting any state claims he might bring against the defendants. If he filed neither an amended complaint nor a notice of dismissal by August 3, 2023, the court stated that it would reassign the case and recommend dismissal for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.