Negley v. Pierce County Planning and Public Works

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05577
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 JOHN WILLIAM NEGLEY, CASE NO. 25-5577-BHS 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on its review of pro se plaintiff John Negley’s 15 proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 6. The Court ordered Negley to file an amended complaint 16 because his original complaint, Dkt. 4, was wholly conclusory and did not state a plausible 17 claim. Dkt. 5. The Court’s order explained that in order to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff 18 must allege facts sufficient to allow the court to reasonably infer that defendant is liable for the 19 alleged wrongdoing. Dkt. 5 at 1–2: 20 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from 21 the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First 22 Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance 24 1 in law or fact.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 2 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it 4 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for 5 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

6 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual 7 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 8 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ 9 of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 10 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to 11 raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and 12 footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 13 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly at 555). 14 In order to state a plausible claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that allow the court to

15 “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 16 556 U.S. at 678. 17 Negley alleges only that the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department “is harassing/threatening 18 me now with takeover of my personal property.” Dkt. 4 at 6. This is wholly conclusory and is not 19 sufficient to state a plausible claim. 20 Negley’s amended complaint is not materially different than his initial pleading. It again 21 asserts that he has been “relentlessly harassed by defendant,” and that the facts underlying his 22 claim are “harassment, threats and intimidation.” Dkt. 6 at 6. 23 24 1 Negley has failed to articulate the “who what when where why and how” of a plausible, 2 viable claim against any defendant. It is insufficient to simply state that the defendant is 3 harassing the plaintiff. 4 This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. 5 The Clerk shall close the case.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025. A 8

10 BBEENNJJAAMMIINN HH.. SSEETTTTLLEE UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee 11

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24