Matthew Heaven v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01857
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MATTHEW HEAVEN, CASE NO. 25-cv-01857-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on pro se petitioner Matthew Heaven’s 15 Complaint, Dkt. # 1. 16 A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and a court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, 18 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that are immune from such 19 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 20 2000) (en banc). A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 21 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff does not need to 22 provide detailed factual allegations, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 23 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 1 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Still, when the 2 plaintiff is pro se, courts “construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of 3 any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773

4 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)). 5 Even construing Heaven’s claims liberally, he fails to state a claim. The allegations in 6 his complaint are a series of conclusory statements. For instance, he claims, “On December 5, 7 2021, Plaintiff suffered injuries in a purported vehicle accident later admitted to have been 8 fabricated by FBI personnel”; “In 2022, FBI personnel sabotaged Plaintiff’s driver licensing tests 9 and pressured him to sue a private citizen as misdirection”; and, “In 2023, Plaintiff was 10 incapacitated with chemicals while asleep, and unknown perpetrators inflicted burns consistent 11 with electrocautery or similar device.” Dkt. # 1 at 6. He then recites the elements of each of the 12 causes of action. As one example, he says, “Count I – Negligence: Defendant, through its

13 employees, breached duties of care by staging a false accident, ignoring credible reports, 14 permitting assaults, and failing to prevent an attempted vehicular homicide.” Id. at 7. And he 15 seeks $5 billion in compensatory damages. Id. at 9. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to 16 state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 17 For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Heaven’s claims under 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and grants him leave to amend, if he wishes, within 14 days of the 19 filing of this Order. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (when a court 20 dismisses a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint, the court must give the plaintiff leave to 21 amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 22 If Heaven ’s amended complaint fails to meet the required pleading standard, the Court will

23 dismiss the matter with prejudice. 24 l Dated this 20th day of October, 2025 ° Lak 4, Chae 3 John H. Chun United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24