Crary v. Queen Elizabeth

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 14, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05408
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

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

10 JAMES MACRYLAND CRARY, 11 Case No. 3:22-cv-05408-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14

15 QUEEN ELIZABETH, RINGO STARR, ROBERT FRIPP, AND YOKO 16 ONO, 17 18 Defendants. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff James 21 Macryland Crary (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a 22 complaint. Dkt. ## 1, 1-1. On June 10, 2022, the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson 23 granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis while recommending review under 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuance of summons. Dkt 4. Having reviewed the 25 complaint, the Court DISMISSES the action. 26 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to 4 certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these 5 requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines 6 that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: “the court shall 7 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous 8 or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 9 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 12 prisoners”). 13 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 16 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 17 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 18 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 19 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 20 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 21 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 22 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 23 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 24 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 25 Here, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit against Queen Elizabeth, Ringo Starr, 26 Robert Fripp, and Yoko Ono. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2-3. However, in his statement of the claim, 27 he does not identify any actions taken by any of the named defendants. Id. at 5. He 1 merely states that “[t]he assassins are criminally insane. They took me to deranged serial 2 mayhem.” Id. at 5. He further alleges that he is a “victim of a deranged [] revenge act 3 from WW2.” Id. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is 4 plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 568. These conclusory assertions do not 5 support a cause of action against any named defendants. 6 In the absence of any factual allegations supporting any discernable cause of 7 action on which relief may be granted, the Court must dismiss the complaint without 8 prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may, 9 however, amend the complaint within 21 days of the Order. “Unless it is absolutely clear 10 that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 11 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” 12 Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 15 prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the 16 Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order by filing an amended complaint 17 that corrects the deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this action without leave 18 to amend.

19 DATED this 14th day of June, 2022. 20 A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26 27