Aine v. National Security Agency

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 NICOLE ERICA AINE, aka NICHOLAS ERIC LEVAK 9 CASE NO. C22-1608-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 15 No. 9), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 6.) On December 22, 2022, the Honorable S. Kate 17 Vaughan, U.S. Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s application. (Dkt. No. 8.) Summons has not 18 yet issued. 19 When a person seeks to proceed in forma pauperis the Court must review the complaint 20 and dismiss it if it is “frivolous, or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B); See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1915(e)(2) 23 requires a court reviewing a complaint filed in forma pauperis to rule on its own motion to 1 dismiss before directing service. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A plaintiff need not give “detailed factual 4 allegations,” but must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the

5 speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). To state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 7 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 8 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is facially plausible when the factual 9 allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 10 misconduct alleged.” Id. 11 The Court holds pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading standards and liberally 12 construes a pro se complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 13 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). When dismissing a complaint under § 1915(e), the Court gives pro se 14 plaintiffs leave to amend unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could

15 not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 The complaint alleges violations under 42 U.S.C § 1985 (conspiracy to interfere with 17 civil rights), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (fraud and related activity in connection with computers), as well 18 as the First and Fourth Amendments. (Dkt. No. 9.) However, these allegations are conclusory 19 and do not rise above the speculative level. Plaintiff contends that she has been subjected to 20 “trauma based psychological programming” and has been denied her “guaranteed right to work 21 due to extreme physical torture.” (Id. at 5.) These fanciful and unsupported allegations should be 22 dismissed because they present no point of law that is arguable on the merits. See Neitzke v. 23 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“Courts of Appeals have recognized § 1915(d)’s term 1 ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but 2 also the fanciful factual allegation.”); see also Norton v. Amador Cnty. Detention Facility, 2009 3 WL 3824755 slip op. at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (listing cases dismissed based upon fantastical or 4 delusional allegations).

5 As it is clear the complaint could not be cured by amendment, the Court DISMISSES the 6 complaint with prejudice,1 and STRIKES the motion to stay (Dkt. No. 7) and the motion to 7 appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 10) as moot. 8 DATED this 26th day of January 2023. 9 A 10

11 JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 Leave to amend need not be provided when doing so would be futile. Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018).