Jay Frank Fischer v. Washington Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-05646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JAY FRANK FISCHER, CASE NO. C26-5646 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court following Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Order 14 granting pro se plaintiff Jay Fischer’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, based on 15 his indigency, leaving to this Court evaluation of whether Fischer’s complaint asserts a 16 plausible claim and should be served. Dkt. 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). 17 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears 18 from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 19 Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); 20 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it 21 has no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 22 1 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 2 1984). 3 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other

4 complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially 5 plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic 6 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible 7 when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 8 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “[A] plaintiff’s

9 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 10 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 11 not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 12 level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a 13 plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

14 accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly at 555). 15 Fischer asserts an Eighth Amendment claim against the Washington Department 16 of Corrections, for excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. He seeks 17 $35,000,000. Dkt. 5 at 3–5. His complaint asserts that DOC “misclassified him as a black 18 male,” and that the “treatment he received which in confinement and while in community

19 custodial supervision is cruel and unusual.” Dkt. 5 at 5. 20 Fischer has pled literally no facts supporting these legal conclusions. Ordinarily, 21 the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint to state a 22 plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) 1 (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, 2 that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). 3 The Court cannot know what facts support Fischer’s claim as he has made no

4 factual allegations. He shall file an amended complaint articulating the “who what when 5 where how and why” of a factual narrative supporting a plausible legal cause of action 6 against a proper defendant within 21 days. If he does not, this matter will be dismissed 7 without further notice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated this 30th day of June, 2026. A 10 11 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 12 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22