Cohn v. Washington

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 13 AT SEATTLE

14 REUEL COHN, 15 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-1411-RAJ 16 v. ORDER 17 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 18 Defendant. 19

20 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the 21 Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 5. 22 Plaintiff filed this action against the State of Washington seeking a declaration that 23 certain land in Island County, Washington is an established and active reservation that 24 was set aside for the Snoqualmoo/Snoqualmie tribes. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff also submitted 25 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Brian A. Tsuchida granted 26 the application. Dkt. # 4. 27 1 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 3 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 4 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 6 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 7 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 8 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 9 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 10 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 11 Treaties are contracts between sovereigns and “do not give rise to individual 12 actions.” See Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 515–16 (9th Cir. 13 2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek enforcement of the Treaty as an 14 individual. Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51, 55 n.1 (2d Cir. 1994) 15 (“Individual Indians do not fall within the zone of interests to be protected by the 16 Nonintercourse Act.”). While the Tribe itself could seek to vindicate any rights allegedly 17 guaranteed it under the Treaty in question, Plaintiff cannot vindicate those rights himself. 18 See Cohn v. Washington, 11-cv-1649 (W.D. Wash. 2011), Dkt. # 14; Johns v. Cnty. of 19 San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to 20 appear as an attorney for others than himself.’” (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 21 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987))); see Local General Rule 2(g)(4)(B). Because 22 Plaintiff cannot prosecute this claim, the Court dismisses the complaint. 23 For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff’s complaint 24 with leave to amend. Dkt. # 5. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff 30 days from the date of 25 this Order to secure counsel. If no notice of appearance is filed within that 30- day period, 26 the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 27 1 Johns, 114 F.3d at 879 (affirming the trial court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, but 2 concluding that it should have dismissed without prejudice).

3 DATED this 14th day of June, 2023. 4

5 A

6 7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 8 United States District Judge 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27