Sheyanne Foster v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05885
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SHEYANNE FOSTER, CASE NO. C25-5885 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court following Magistrate Judge Theresa Fricke’s 14 Order, Dkt. 4, granting pro se plaintiff Sheyanne Foster’s application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis based on her indigency, Dkt. 1. It is up to this Court to evaluate whether 16 Foster’s proposed complaint, Dkt. 5, asserts a plausible claim and should be served. 17 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears 18 from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 19 Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); 20 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it 21 ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. 22 1 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 2 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

3 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other 4 complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially 5 plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic 6 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible 7 when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 8 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. “[A]

9 plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 10 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 11 action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 12 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnotes omitted). This 13 requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-

14 me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly at 555). 15 In order to state a plausible claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that allow the court 16 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 17 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 18 Foster seeks $250 million for “wrongful acts and violations of rights” committed

19 by defendant Providence Health & Services. Dkt. 5 at 6. She alleges Providence 20 committed medical malpractice when it negligently performed a procedure on Foster. She 21 also seems to challenge an Emergency Minor Guardianship Order filed by Teya Harris in 22 Thurston County Superior Court. Id.; Dkt. 5-1 at 26. Foster lists several constitutional 1 violations as the basis for federal jurisdiction, but does not assert how Providence—a 2 private company—violated each of these rights. Dkt. 5 at 3–4. If Foster’s intent is to

3 assert a § 1983 claim, she cannot do so because Providence is not a state actor. Sutton v. 4 Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Foster’s proposed complaint does not articulate sufficient facts to state a plausible 6 claim in this Court. It is not enough to simply assert violations of federal rights without 7 adequately explaining what facts support those allegations. Furthermore, this Court 8 cannot and will not review the state court order. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

9 Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases 10 brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court 11 judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”). 12 Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their 13 complaint to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984,

14 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, 15 upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). 16 Foster may amend her complaint to articulate more clearly alleged violations of 17 her federal rights, or to otherwise articulate a basis for federal diversity jurisdiction. Any 18 amended complaint should focus on the “who, what, when, where, and why” of a factual

19 story, and should be filed by November 26, 2025. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 // 22 // 1 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. A 2 3 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 4 United States District Judge 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22