Michelle Nicole Riddle v. District Court of Washington for Yakima County

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 05, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7

8 MICHELLE NICOLE RIDDLE, No. 1:25-CV-03151-RLP 9 Plaintiff,

10 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 11 DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR YAKIMA 12 COUNTY,

13 Defendant. 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff Michelle Nicole Riddle’s Complaint, ECF No. 15 1. Ms. Riddle appears pro se. The Court granted Ms. Riddle leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. The Complaint has not been served. For the reasons 17 discussed below, Ms. Riddle’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 A plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject 20 1 to sua spone review of his or her complaint, and mandatory dismissal, if the 2 complaint is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state claim upon which relief may be

3 granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” See 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537-38, 135 S.Ct. 5 1759 (2015); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

6 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in 7 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that a plaintiff is 9 entitled to relief, FRCP 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief

10 that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 11 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, 12 but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129

13 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the 14 mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The 15 complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan 16 Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must

17 state is a “claim” - a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 18 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en 19 banc) (citations omitted).

20 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or 1 in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded by statute on 2 other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000);

3 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court may, 4 therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 5 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

6 490 U.S. at 327 7 ANALYSIS 8 Ms. Riddle names as Defendant the District Court of Washington for 9 Yakima County, which is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The

10 Eleventh Amendment states that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall 11 not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 12 against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or Citizens or

13 Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment 14 bars federal suits against states as well as arms of the state, “regardless of the 15 nature of relief sought.” Crowe v. Or. State Bar, 989 F.3d 714, 730 (9th Cir. 2021) 16 (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)).

17 State courts are “arms of the state” and are entitled to Eleventh Amendment 18 immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 19 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Ms. Riddle’s suit against the District Court of

20 Washington for Yakima County must be dismissed. 1 As noted above, frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed 2|| before service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. A 3|| complaint 1s frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Jd. at 325. 4|| Leave to amend is not necessary if it is clear that the deficiencies in the complaint 5|| cannot be cured by amendment. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th 6|| Cir. 1984). Because the District Court of Washington for Yakima County is named 7|| as defendant, the claim fails as a matter of law and is therefore frivolous. 8 || Amendment of the pleadings will not allow Ms. Riddle to maintain an action against this defendant. 10 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is 11|} DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The case is CLOSED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 13|| and provide a copy to Ms. Riddle. 14 DATED November 5, 2025. I 16 ~ REBECCA L.PENNELL | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20

ORDER NIGAUITCCINIG CONMDT AIN'T _ 4