Forsman v. Port of Seattle

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 RAYMOND A. FORSMAN, CASE NO. C21-867RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 v. 12 Defendant.

13 This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) 14 brought by Defendant Port of Seattle. Dkt. #10. Plaintiff Forsman opposes with a series of 15 letters and exhibits. See Dkts. #11, #11-1, #12 and #13. Neither party has requested oral 16 argument, and in any event the Court finds it can rule without it. 17 In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as 18 true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v. 19 Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). 20 However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual 21 allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 22 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 23 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met 24 1 when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include 2 detailed allegations, but it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 3 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent 4 facial plausibility, a plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Id. at 570. 5 Defendant Port of Seattle argues: 6 Plaintiff’s current Amended Complaint (Dkt. 3) is approximately 7 the eighth separate complaint he has filed against the Port of Seattle and its employees/attorneys across the course of three 8 separate lawsuits in this Court. The current Amended Complaint addresses the same facts, and makes the same allegations, as all of 9 the prior complaints, each of which have been dismissed with prejudice. Because Plaintiff’s claims have already been adjudicated 10 by this Court, and because the Amended Complaint fails to provide a factual or legal basis for liability, the Port of Seattle respectfully 11 requests it be dismissed with prejudice under FRCP 12(b)(6).

12 Dkt. #10 at 1. Defendant directs the Court’s attention to Case No. 2:19-cv-02050-RSL, where 13 Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, and Case No. 2:20-cv-01266-RSL, where 14 Plaintiff’s claims were also dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 2–3. Defendant argues that the 15 claims in the instant case are the same claims as those that were previously dismissed with 16 prejudice in these two prior cases. Id. at 4–7. 17 Plaintiffs’ responsive filings cite to the rulings and decisions of Judges Lasnik and 18 Peterson in the above cases. See, e.g., Dkt. #11-1 at 2 (“Many tenants had encouraged me to 19 file a complaint which I finally did in 19-cv-02050 but now was thrown out of court by a 20 magistrate Peterson and a federal Judge Lasnik.”). 21 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by 22 parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 23 757, 759 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S. Ct. 970, 24 1 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)). Disallowed claims include both those that were raised and those that “could have been raised in the prior action.” W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 2 1192 (9th Cir.1997). The doctrine applies where there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final 3 judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between parties. Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 4 721 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Glickman, 123 F.3d at 1192). A dismissal with 5 prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is considered a “final judgment on the 6 merits.” Federated Dep't Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103 7 (1981); Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino, 181 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.1999). 8 The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and that of Plaintiff’s prior cases 9 mentioned above. Plaintiff brings suit against the same Defendant, Port of Seattle, and raises 10 the same factual and legal issues as in C19-2050-RSL. Although Plaintiff now cites different 11 sources of law, the Court agrees with Defendant that these claims are barred by res judicata 12 because they were raised or could have been raised in the prior dismissed action. Taken 13 together, the rulings of Magistrate Judge Peterson and Judge Lasnik in C19-2050-RSL 14 constitute a dismissal of the claims on the merits. 15 Even if these claims were not barred by res judicata, the Court finds that the Amended 16 Complaint fails to set forth a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment or False Claims Act for 17 the reasons set forth by Defendant. See Dkt. #10 at 7–8. Accordingly, this Complaint is 18 properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The history of this Plaintiff’s filings indicates that 19 further amendment would be futile and that these claims are properly dismissed with prejudice. 20 Having reviewed the relevant briefing, pleadings, and the remainder of the record, the 21 Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #10, is GRANTED. 22 Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED. 23

24 1 DATED this 30th day of September, 2021.

3 A 4 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24