Broussard v. ABM Facility Seattle

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00644
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 RONEL BROUSSARD, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00644-RAJ

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

14 ABM FACILITY SEATTLE and SEIU 6 UNION, 15 Defendants. 16

17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Ronel Broussard 19 (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. # 7. For the reasons set forth below, the 20 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DISMISSES his 21 Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. # 5. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 Although unclear, this case involves potential employment discrimination and 24 retaliation. The Complaint asserts diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 25 In his statement of the claim, Plaintiff alleges that his “rights were violated due to a 26 1 work[-]related injury that happen[ed] to [him] on the job.” Id. at 5. He then claims that 2 when he returned to work after receiving worker’s compensation, “the discrimination 3 started.” Id. Plaintiff does not detail the form of discrimination in his Complaint, but he 4 states that Defendants falsely accused him of lying and subjected him to unspecified 5 “harassments.” Id. When explaining the amount in controversy, Plaintiff notes the 6 following: “I feel the [D]efendants both are responsible for me losing money because of 7 the turmoil they have put me [through] . . . .” Id. 8 Plaintiff previously submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, but he 9 eventually paid the requisite $405.00 filing fee. Dkt. # 1. In the instant Motion, Plaintiff 10 does not indicate if he has been unsuccessful in finding an attorney, instead describing 11 that he contacted attorneys “to see what could be done.” Dkt. # 7 at 2. 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 A. Inherent Authority to Dismiss an Action 14 A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 15 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not “state a 16 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 17 568 (2007). Even if a plaintiff who initially decides to proceed in forma pauperis 18 ultimately pays the appropriate filing fee, district courts still have the authority to dismiss 19 the action. See Voag v. Alonzo, No. 2:20-cv-01450-JCC, 2020 WL 6820823, at *1 (W.D. 20 Wash. Nov. 20, 2020) (citing Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991) (9th Cir. 21 1987) (holding that a trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6)). 22 Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 23 The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and 24 credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 25 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state 26 1 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 568 (2007). Where 2 a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint liberally. 3 Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v. 4 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 5 B. Motion to Appoint Counsel 6 As a general matter, a plaintiff does not have a right to counsel in civil actions. 7 See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). In certain cases, 8 “exceptional circumstances” may warrant the appointment of counsel. Agyeman v. 9 Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of exceptional 10 circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and 11 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 12 legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) 13 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 The Court summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and 16 denies his Motion without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit has permitted a district court to 17 dismiss a plaintiff’s case, regardless of whether the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, 18 if the district court determines that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may 19 be granted. See Omar, 813 F.2d at 991. Plaintiff claims this case involves 20 “discrimination,” but there is no citation to a specific federal statute. Dkt. # 7 at 2. There 21 is also a concern about whether diversity jurisdiction actually exists, as Plaintiff does not 22 allude to an amount in controversy and fails to address where Defendants reside.1 Id. 23 Moreover, there is no reference to a specific instance of alleged discrimination or 24 harassment. Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot proceed as it currently stands. Accordingly, 25

26 1 The names of Defendants indicate they are based in Washington, although this is not confirmed. 1 the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, and it will grant Plaintiff twenty- 2 eight (28) days from the date of this Order to address the deficiencies referenced in this 3 section. 4 Given the status of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court denies his Motion to Appoint 5 Counsel without prejudice. Based on the problems noted above, the Court finds that no 6 exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel because Plaintiff is 7 unlikely to succeed on the merits. His reason for seeking counsel is also grossly 8 insufficient, and the language of the Motion makes it appear that he is still trying to obtain 9 representation. However, the Court acknowledges that an amended pleading could 10 change its analysis regarding the “exceptional circumstances” probe. The Court denies 11 the Motion without prejudice, and it will grant Plaintiff twenty-eight (28) days from the 12 date of this Order to file an amended motion. 13 V. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. # 5. Additionally, his Motion to Appoint Counsel is 16 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. # 7. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 17 within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order. Any amended complaint shall include a 18 short and plain statement concerning: (1) the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction; (2) a 19 showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the specific relief sought. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 1 If Plaintiff fails to comply timely with this Order and does not correct the 2 deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. Plaintiff may 3 also file an amended motion to appoint counsel within twenty-eight (28) days of this 4 Order. 5

6 Dated this day 30th of July, 2025. 7

8 A

9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26