Card v. Subramanian

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA TONY LAMAR CARD, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05911-JNW Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. RAVI SUBRAMANIAN, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on its own accord. On December 4, 2024, the Court reviewed Plaintiff Tony Card’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found his claims to be frivolous and malicious. Dkt. No. 6 at 5. Despite the serious problems with Card’s complaint, the Court granted him leave to amend his complaint by no later than January 6, 2025, to give him a chance to save his claims. Id. at 6. The Court warned that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Id. To date, Card has not filed an amended complaint. On April 23, 2025, Card filed a document styled as a “Notice.” Dkt. No. 7. Even following construing this filing liberally, as the Court must for pro se pleadings, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), Card’s filing cannot be fairly construed as an amended complaint given that it neither names any defendants nor asserts any claims for

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)–(3) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought[.]”). Because Card failed to file an amended complaint by the court-imposed deadline, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case.

Dated this 28th day of April, 2025. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge