Brown v. United States Department of Education

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 8, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ELIZABETH BROWN, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00206-TL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff Elizabeth 17 Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint against the United States Department of Education 18 (“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 1-1. The complaint purports to arise under 41 U.S.C. § 6503, which in 19 turn involves contracts governed by 41 U.S.C. § 6502. These statutes pertain to requirements for 20 contracts with the United States government “for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, 21 supplies, articles, or equipment, in an amount exceeding $10,000.” 41 U.S.C. § 6502. Plaintiff 22 also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1), which was granted 23 (Dkt. No. 4). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a 24 1 claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court further finds that amendment would be futile 2 and DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. 3 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 4 Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to the requirements

5 set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these requirements is the Court’s duty to 6 dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 8 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not 9 just those filed by prisoners”). 10 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) 13 (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to assume the truth of the 14 complaint’s factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations.

15 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual 16 allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 17 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the 18 plaintiff’s complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 19 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). If a plaintiff fails to meet the 20 plausibility standard, the court is permitted to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Generally, 21 courts will allow a pro se plaintiff to amend a complaint in lieu of dismissal unless amendment 22 would be futile because no set of facts can cure the deficiencies. Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 23 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2017).

24 1 Here, Plaintiff claims that her daughter forged her signature on a FAFSA form submitted 2 to Defendant in 2016. Dkt. No. 5 at 6. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff reported the matter to police 3 in Concord, Massachusetts, who advised her “to file a report with FAFSA.” Id. She then 4 contacted Defendant to report the matter and was assigned a case number. Id. Plaintiff claims

5 that Defendant “neglected to resolve” the case, and that her daughter “was never brought to 6 justice in a court of law for fraudulently signing [Plaintiff’s] name on the FAFSA form.” Id. 7 Plaintiff goes on to detail the ways in which her relationship with her daughter has been strained, 8 which has caused internal family strife. Id. at 6-9. Plaintiff further explains that these events have 9 contributed to her struggles with mental health. Id. at 7.1 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from 10 Defendant in the amount of $9,000,000, including $6,000,000 in punitive damages, $2,000,000 11 for damages resulting from her not being invited to her daughter’s wedding, and $1,000,000 for a 12 potential creditor who may seek reimbursement from her, presumably for money her daughter 13 received in the form of financial aid for college based on the allegedly forged FAFSA form. Id. 14 at 5.

15 Plaintiff asserts claims under 41 U.S.C. § 6503. However, Plaintiff’s claims purport to 16 arise under federal statues meant to protect rights guaranteed to employees of federal contractors. 17 See 41 U.S.C. §§ 6502, 6503. Plaintiff is not an employee of federal contractors. Further, 18 Plaintiff has no authority to sue under these statutes. See Ali v. Asura Ins. Servs., 2016 WL 19 8731060, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2016); see also United States v. W.H. Kistler Stationery Co., 20 200 F.2d 805, 806 (10th Cir. 1952) (cause of action under Title 41 of the United States Code 21 22 1 The Court notes that the crux of the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint largely mirror those from a case that she previously filed in this Court. See Brown v. United States Department of Education, Case No. 2:21-cv-00326-RAJ, 23 Dkt. Nos. 4, 10. That case was dismissed with prejudice because the Court found that Plaintiff failed to provide any factual basis to support a constitutional due process claim under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments in either 24 her original or amended complaints. Id. at Dkt. No. 11. 1 “belong[s] to the government alone”); U.S . v. Lovknit Mfg. Co., 189 F.2d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 2 1951) (“[N]o one may sue for a breach of these contracts in any respect except the United States 3 through the Attorney General.”). Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must therefore 4 dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

5 Finding further that amendment would be futile, as no set of facts could cure the deficiency, the 6 Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 8th day of March 2022. 9 A 10 Tana Lin United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24