Adamovich v. The Loose Wheel House

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05593
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 IGOR ALEKSANDROVICH Case No. 3:25-cv-05593-TMC 8 ADAMOVICH, ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR 9 COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED Plaintiff, UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) 10 v. 11 THE LOOSE WHEEL HOUSE, 12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter is before the Court at the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Grady J. 15 Leupold in his Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 2. On July 8, 16 2025, pro se Plaintiff Igor Aleksandrovich Adamovich filed his complaint against Defendant The 17 Loose Wheel House and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1. Judge 18 Leupold granted Mr. Adamovich’s application to proceed IFP but recommended review of the 19 case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because “it does not appear Plaintiff has adequately stated 20 a claim.” Dkt. 2 at 1. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 The Court must subject each civil action commenced under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to 23 mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any case that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 1 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 2 is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 3 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to

4 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to dismiss an IFP complaint that fails 6 to state a claim). 7 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but, like any other complaint, it 8 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for 9 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 10 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual 11 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. Unless it is clear a pro se plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of a

13 complaint, the Court will provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint to 14 state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 15 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, 16 that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). 17 II. REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT Mr. Adamovich’s complaint alleges only that the Loose Wheel House “fired me based on 18 the fact that I’m originally from Moldova” and seeks $75,000 in damages. Dkt. 3 at 2. The 19 complaint does not provide any additional facts that would provide “fair notice” of what “each 20 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570; see Starr v. Baca, 21 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (“allegations in a complaint . . . must contain sufficient 22 allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 23 effectively”). For example, Mr. Adamovich does not give the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction 24 l or state whether he is alleging that the Loose Wheel House fired him in violation of state or 2 federal law. See generally Dkt. 3. Though the Court liberally construes the complaint as raising 3 both federal and state claims, Mr. Adamovich must still give sufficient details about his firing 4 || that plausibly suggest that Defendant engaged in discriminatory conduct. Specifically, 5 Mr. Adamovich needs to explain what happened when he was fired that leads him to believe he 6 || was fired due to his national origin. Because the current complaint does not provide enough facts 7 || to state a claim, the Court is required to dismiss his complaint unless he can cure its deficiencies. 8 § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi1); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d at 995. 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 Mr. Adamovich is directed to file a proposed amended complaint no later than August 29, ll 2025. The amended complaint must include a short, plain statement explaining (1) the grounds 2 for the Court’s jurisdiction, (2) the claims asserted against Defendant, (3) specific facts that Mr.

13 Adamovich believes support each claim, and (4) the relief requested. Otherwise, the Court will

14 dismiss his complaint without prejudice. 15 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

16 || any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

17 Dated this 8th day of August, 2025.

is ig 19 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C. §