Brown v. United States Marshal Service

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 15, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01246
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, 11 CASE NO. C19-01246 RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DISMISSING UNITED STATES MARSHAL PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 SERVICE, et. al., FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 14 CLAIM Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the 17 Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Jerome Julius Brown’s complaint with leave to 18 amend. Dkt. # 9. 19 On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Gerald 20 Auerback, Donald Washington, Hyunok Lee, Vincent O’Neal, Edwin Sloan, and the 21 United States Marshal Service. Dkt. # 9. In doing so, Plaintiff submitted an application 22 to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Michelle L. Peterson granted the 23 application. Dkt. # 7. 24 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 26 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 27 1 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 3 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 4 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 5 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 6 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 7 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 8 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 11 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 13 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 14 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 15 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 16 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 17 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 18 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 19 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 20 Plaintiff’s complaint is largely incomprehensible and provides very few details 21 regarding Defendants’ alleged actions. For example, Plaintiff alleges “Conflict of 22 interest name Donald W. Washington. Conflict of interest not Washington but Capitol 23 City, D.C.. Conflict of Interest, USDC Western District of Washington.” Dkt. # 9 at 5. 24 Plaintiff also alleges that he was “arrested by two US Marshals at clerks office 05 29, 25 2011” but provides no additional details regarding the arrest. Dkt. # 9 at 3. While 26 Plaintiff appears to allege negligence, the complaint contains no allegations explaining 27 what the negligent acts were or how the allegations are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims 1 against Defendants. Even construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the 2 Plaintiff and giving due deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, his complaint fails to state a 3 claim showing he is entitled to relief. 4 Taking these allegations as true and construing them liberally, the Court concludes 5 that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. The Court 6 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint, without prejudice. Dkt. # 9. Within fourteen (14) 7 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing 8 the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within 9 that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable 10 claim for relief that Court will dismiss the action. 11 Dated this 15th day of August, 2019. 12 13 A 14 15 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 16 United States District Judge

17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27