Samantha Lynn Clark v. Lewis County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06129
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SAMANTHA LYNN CLARK, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-06129-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 4) AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 13 LEWIS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 5) 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a). Plaintiff is bringing a suit in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to § 1915(a); 18 accordingly, the Court must do a mandatory and sua sponte review and will dismiss the 19 complaint if it fails to state a claim or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 20 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) and (iii). “The standard for determining whether a 21 plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is 22 the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 23 Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff is also proceeding pro se. 24 1 While a pro se plaintiff’s complaint must be construed liberally, it must nevertheless contain 2 factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 3 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4 Here, Plaintiff is suing the Lewis County Superior Court for issuing an order of

5 protection against her and limiting her access to her child and her ability to pursue work in her 6 desired field of law enforcement. (Dkt. No. 4 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts violations of the Americans 7 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“LEOSA”), and state law. 8 (Id.) The complaint does not identify the basis for Plaintiff’s claims against the Lewis County 9 Superior Court. 10 More importantly, Plaintiff’s claims against the Lewis County Superior Court are barred 11 by the Eleventh Amendment because it is an arm of the State of Washington. Munoz v. Superior 12 Court of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Because the Superior Court is 13 an arm of the state—and no exception applies to the rule prohibiting suits against the state—it 14 has Eleventh Amendment immunity.”).

15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 5) is 17 DENIED as MOOT and the Clerk is directed to close this case. 18 19 Dated this 9th day of January, 2026. 20 a 21 David G. Estudillo 22 United States District Judge

23 24