Aguda v. United States

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00752
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ALIH AGUDA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00752-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. COMPLAINT 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 29, 2025, United States Magistrate 17 Judge Brian A. Tsuchida granted Plaintiff Alih Aguda’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 but recommended that the complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuance 19 of summons. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. Having reviewed the complaint, the record, and the applicable law, 20 the Court dismisses Mr. Aguda’s complaint for the reasons set forth below. 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they “possess only that power 22 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 23 377 (1994). This means that the Court can only hear certain types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A., 24 Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 438 (2019). The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established 1 where (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 2 treaties of the United States” or (2) the parties have diverse citizenship (e.g., residents of different 3 states) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal courts 4 also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain types of actions against the United States when

5 it has consented to be sued and thus waived its sovereign immunity. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1346. 6 A waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory 7 text. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). 8 The Court must dismiss an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 9 jurisdiction” over the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 10 the Court must dismiss plaintiffs’ complaints if their claims (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail 11 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant 12 who is immune from such relief. The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. 13 See United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). 14 Mr. Aguda’s handwritten allegations are difficult to decipher, but he appears to allege that

15 he was “[d]enied all rights and freedoms in Nevada, Colorado, . . . California, Maryland, Virginia, 16 and now Washington State with abuses.” Dkt. No. 5 at 6. In the relief section of his complaint, he 17 writes, “Please help me reclaim all my Rights and all my Freedoms! All of which I am all possible 18 from S. impossibility to all unlimited legal possibles!! Plus please honor all my past restraining 19 orders, and now restraining orders!” Id. at 7. The only named Defendant is the United States. Id. 20 at 1–2. 21 A plaintiff suing the United States must identify an unequivocal waiver of its sovereign 22 immunity, Blue v. Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1998), which Mr. Aguda does not, Dkt. 23 No. 5. Nor does he identify a specific statute under which he is suing. See id. Mr. Aguda appears

24 to have marked the box on the form complaint indicating that he is suing Federal officials (a Bivens 1 claim). Id. at 5; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 2 388 (1971). “Bivens created a remedy for violations of constitutional rights committed by federal 3 officials acting in their individual capacities,” Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. 4 v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007), but it “does not provide a means of cutting

5 through the sovereign immunity of the United States itself,” Arnsberg v. United States, 757 F.2d 6 971, 980 (1984). Therefore, the complaint fails to identify a waiver of the United States’ sovereign 7 immunity or a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 8 In addition to these deficiencies, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 9 be granted. A complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 10 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 11 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, 12 they “nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of 13 what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 14 1995). Here, the complaint includes only vague allegations, no facts, which do not even rise to the

15 level of “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 16 The Court is mindful that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the 17 defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity 18 to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrs., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 19 1995). Because amendment may be possible, the Court grants leave to file an amended complaint. 20 However, this Order limits Mr. Aguda to the filing of an amended complaint that attempts to cure 21 the specific deficiencies identified in this Order. He may not reallege a Bivens claim against the 22 United States, which is dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., Vasquez v. Washington Dep’t of 23 Veterans Affs., 746 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1023 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (finding that “it would be futile to

24 grant leave to amend with respect to [plaintiff’s] claims that are barred by sovereign immunity”). 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Aguda’s complaint, Dkt. No. 5, with 2 limited leave to amend as described above. Mr. Aguda’s amended complaint, should he choose to 3 file one, must be legible, must clearly identify the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, 4 and must provide a short and plain statement of the factual basis of his claim as required by Federal

5 Rule of Civil Procedure 8. A timely filed amended complaint operates as a complete substitute for 6 an original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). For that reason, 7 any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant, the claim asserted, the specific facts 8 that Mr. Aguda believes support the claim, and the specific relief requested. If Mr. Aguda does not 9 file a proper amended complaint by May 27, 2025, the Court will dismiss this action and close this 10 case. 11 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 12 to Mr. Aguda at his last known address. 13 Dated this 6th day of May, 2025. 14 A

15 Lauren King United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24