Marcos-Chavela v. United States Supreme Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 26, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00976
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SUSAN MARCOS-CHAVELA, 11 CASE No. 2:22-cv-00976-RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 UNTED STATES SUPREME COURT, 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the 19 Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 20 On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action, naming the “United 21 States Supreme Court” as Defendant. Dkt. 1, 5. Plaintiff’s claims and request for relief 22 are difficult to decipher, but she appears to allege that the Court does not possess a 23 quorum and lied to Congress. Dkt. 5 at 3-5. Plaintiff also submitted an application to 24 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. On July 19, 2022, the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan 25 granted the application while recommending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 26 Dkt. 4. 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 4 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 5 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 7 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 8 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 9 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 10 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 11 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 12 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 15 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 16 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 17 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 18 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 19 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 20 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 21 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 22 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 23 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 24 Taking all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds 25 that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Her 26 allegations that the Supreme Court lied to Congress and does not have a quorum are 27 factually unsupported and insufficient to state a claim. Dkt. 5 at 3-5. Further, to the 1 extent that Plaintiff brings a claim against any particular Justice of the United States 2 Supreme Court acting in his or her judicial capacity, such claim must fail, as judicial 3 officers are entitled to judicial immunity, which provides immunity from suit and cannot 4 be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 5 (1991) (first citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); then citing Pierson v. 6 Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 544 (1967)). Although pro se litigants are given more leeway than 7 licensed attorneys when assessing their pleadings, they must still adhere to the Federal 8 Rules of Civil Procedure. Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 9 2008). Plaintiff simply does not state a plausible claim for which any type of relief could 10 be granted by this Court, and there is no reasonable basis for concluding that the 11 deficiencies in the proposed complaint could be cured by amendment. Therefore, the 12 Court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted 13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 DATED this 26th day of July, 2022. 17 18 A 19 20 HON. RICHARD A. JONES 21 United States District Judge

22 23 24 25 26 27