Saliba v. Spokane Int'l Airport Bd.
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-00218-MKD |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Parties | BAHIG SALIBA, Plaintiff, v. SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD Dba SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OFFICER CLAY CREEK, and SERGEANT TARINA ROSE-WATSON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ECF Nos. 12, 17, 18
Before the Court is Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No 12, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18. The Court has reviewed the record and is fully informed. Although Defendants requested a hearing, the Court finds oral argument would not materially aid the resolution of the pending motion and is therefore resolving the motion without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); LCivR 7(i)(3)(B)(iii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18.
Plaintiff filed this pro se Complaint on August 1, 2023. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 21, 2023. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was an airline Captain employed by American Airlines on the date at issue. Id. at 1-2. The allegations arise out of a December 6, 2021 incident during which Plaintiff, who was identified as Middle Eastern in the report regarding the incident, was stopped in the Spokane International Airport when he was not wearing a facial mask, despite a mask mandate in place at the time. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges he was not required to wear a mask, he was racially profiled and unlawfully detained, and Defendants conspired to punish him. Id. Plaintiff contends Defendants violated 49 C.F.R. § 1544.235; a TSA security directive; his right to contract and transit; 18 C.F.R. §§ 241, 242;49 C.F.R. § 114(g)(2); 6 U.S. Code § 111; 14 C.F.R. § 91.11; and his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Id. at 2, 18. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 1, 2023, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to dismiss. On November 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Defendants filed a response to the motion for leave to amend, opposing Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 19.
Plaintiff has brought separate actions against other defendants, for claims arising out of the same mask-enforcement incident at issue in this case, all of which have been dismissed. See Saliba v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, No. CV-22-01025-PHX-DLR, 2023 WL 2648141 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2023); Saliba v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. CV-23-00140-PHX-SPL, 2023 WL 4365337 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2023); Saliba v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. CV-22-00738-PHX-SPL, 2022 WL 4131485 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2022), reconsideration denied, No. CV-22-00738-PHX-SPL, 2022 WL 4614150 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2022); Saliba v. Pekoske et al, 2:22CV00587 (D. Ariz. July 13, 2022). Plaintiff brought an action against the instant Defendants in another court; the case was dismissed, and Plaintiff's motion to transfer was denied. See Saliba v. Spokane International Airport et al., 2:22CV00543 (D. Ariz. March 20, 2023) (ECF Nos. 21, 23). Plaintiff then filed the instant action.
Plaintiff alleges that as a pilot, he was exempted from the mask mandate in place at the Spokane International Airport. ECF No. 12 at 9-10. Plaintiff contends that on December 6, 2021, he arrived at the airport to begin his workday, and he was not wearing a mask. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges TSA manager Daniel Hutchinson requested Plaintiff place a face mask over his nose and mouth, and while Plaintiff tried to explain he was exempt, “the manager was not aware of or understood the regulation or the exemption and insisted on contacting the [Spokane International Airport] police.” Id. He alleges Defendant Creek would not allow Plaintiff to explain why he was exempt from wearing a mask, and Defendant Rose-Watson announced she would go to the gate to notify American Airlines of Plaintiff's refusal to wear a mask. Id. at 9-10, 12-13. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Creek insisted Plaintiff wear a mask and ordered him to “put the dang mask on,” because “you don't want to be the first person to get a citation for not wearing a mask.” Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff contends he was detained for fifteen minutes and was then released and allowed to go to the gate without a face mask. Id. at 14.
Plaintiff contends Defendants violated policies that exempted pilots from wearing a mask and directed them to escort individuals who refuse to wear a mask from the airport and a policy that states they then “may later” file a report. Id. at 11. He also alleges he passed through multiple TSA check points at other airports without a mask, and he believes he was stopped on the day at issue due to racial profiling. Id. at 13. Plaintiff alleges there is evidence there were communications between the police and American Airlines, which indicated they would act against Plaintiff internally. Id. at 17. Plaintiff states he has been off work since December 6, 2021 and has been on unpaid leave since August 22, 2022 and has lost his benefits. Id. at 11-12.
As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)), overruled in part by Lacey, 693 F.3d at 928 ().
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the court's leave or with the opposing party's written consent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). While the court should “freely give leave when justice so requires,” the court may consider relevant factors when assessing a motion for leave to amend including: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility, and whether the party has previously amended the complaint. Id.; Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations and any reasonable inference to be drawn from them, but legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
A complaint must set forth the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies in claiming the liability of each defendant. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Although the standard to evaluate a motion to dismiss is liberal, particularly when the action has been filed pro se, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of a claim that the plaintiff initially failed to plead. Id. Thus, to withstand dismissal on a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff must set forth facts demonstrating how each Defendant caused or personally participated in causing a deprivation of Plaintiff's protected rights. Arnold v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff filed the initial complaint, ECF No. 1, and then filed an amended complaint on September 21, 2023, ECF No. 12. As such, Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once as a matter of course. After Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18. As Defendants do not consent to the amendment, ECF No. 19, the Court must consider whether to grant leave to amend.
Plaintiff's motion states the purposes of his motion to amend is to “remove several defendants, to streamline legal claims to add State law violations, and to include supplemental jurisdiction.” ECF No. 18 at 1. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint alleges violations of plaintiff's First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and his state constitutional rights. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff's allegations mirror those contained in his First Amended Complaint, and thus fail for the same reasons discussed infra. Plaintiff alleges tortious interference with his contract relationship with American Airlines, however Plaintiff does not set forth any facts that demonstrate tortious interference. Id. at 8. This claim is similar to Plaintiff's right to contract claim in his First Amended Complaint and fails as it is similarly vague and fails to state a cognizable claim as discussed infra. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Spokane International Airport was grossly negligent because it failed to train security staff on racial profiling and...
To continue reading
Request your trial