Granger v. United States

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01516
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 CASEY MICHAEL GRANGER AND 10 LONI NICOLE GRANGER, No. 2:25-cv-01516-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 14 MARY M. MURGUIA, Chief Judge, U.S. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR 15 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; AMEND COMPLAINT 16 DAVID ESTUDILLO, Chief Judge, U.S. 17 District Court for the Western District of 18 Washington; JAMAL WHITEHEAD, 19 Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western 20 District of Washington; LAUREN KING, 21 Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western 22 District of Washington; JOHN H. CHUN, 23 Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western 24 District of Washington, 25 Defendants. 26 27 Plaintiffs Casey Granger and Loni Granger, proceeding pro se in this civil 28 matter, filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), ECF Nos. 11, 12. 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs indicate that they are pursuing claims under the Racketeer 3 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, 42 U.S.C. § 4 1983, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512–1513, as well as claims for “Abuse of Process 5 and Malicious Prosecution.” Specifically, Plaintiffs are suing sitting federal judges 6 in the Western District of Washington, as well as the United States itself, and Chief 7 Judge Mary M. Murguia of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging a “broad[] 8 pattern of coordinated judicial and governmental misconduct.” 9 Attached to the Complaint is a list of “harassment techniques” including 10 items such as “Mobbing (or true gangstalking) where everywhere you go you will 11 see an overt display of people following you and often use words you have been 12 conditioned to or your name to draw your attention” and “[t]he use of electronics 13 to [a]ffect your eyesight and balance which was originally developed for the 14 military and police crowd control called ‘dazzling’ and even the ability to make 15 you vomit.” Neither document alleges a specific instance where Defendants 16 employed these harassment techniques against Plaintiffs. 17 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 18 The district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset 19 if the complaint on its face is frivolous or without merit. Tripati v. First Nat. Bank 20 & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). When a complaint is frivolous, the 21 Court shall dismiss the case at any time. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is 22 frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 23 F.2d 1221, 1229 (9th Cir. 1984). A legal complaint stating a claim for relief must 24 contain: 25 (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 26 jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; 27 (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is 28 entitled to relief; and 1 (a3lt)e arn daetimvea nodr f doirf freerlieenft stoyupgehs to, fw rheilciehf .m ay include relief in the 2 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While the pleading standard under Rule 8(a) is not overly 4 taxing, it requires more than mere assertions unsupported by factual allegations. 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 6 When a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court shall construe 7 the pleadings liberally, giving plaintiff any benefit of doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 8 Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988). However, this lenient 9 standard does not excuse a pro se litigant from meeting the most basic pleading 10 requirements. See American Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 11 F.3d 1104, 1107–08 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 Before dismissing a complaint as frivolous or for failing to state a claim, a 13 district court must provide a pro se litigant (1) notice of the deficiencies in the 14 complaint and (2) an opportunity to amend the complaint prior to dismissal. 15 McGucken v. Smith. 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a district court is 16 not required to grant leave to amend where the amended complaint would remain futile 17 or subject to dismissal. Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 ANALYSIS 19 Plaintiffs do not allege any facts in their Complaint. Under the Federal Rules 20 of Civil Procedure and relevant caselaw, they are required to provide sufficient 21 facts to show that they are entitled to relief. They have not done so. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 Because of the deficiencies set forth above, it appears Plaintiffs’ Complaint is 24 subject to dismissal. Plaintiffs may show cause why their application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis should not be denied or may file a proposed Amended Complaint to 26 cure, if possible, the deficiencies noted above, on or before October 15, 2025. If an 27 Amended Complaint is filed, it must be legibly written or retyped in its entirety and 28 contain the same case number. Any cause of action alleged in the original complaint 1] that is not alleged in the amended complaint is waived. The Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it states a claim. If the amended 3|| complaint is not timely filed or fails to adequately address the issues raised herein, the undersigned will enter a denial of Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma 5|| pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to Plaintiffs. 8 DATED this 23rd day of September 2025. 9 10 ~ 11 12 an A Stanléy A. Bastian 13 U.S. District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28