Stanford v. Microsoft Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: July 15, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00225
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jul 15, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 JOSEPH A. STANFORD, NO. 2:24-CV-0225-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 v.

10 MICROSOFT INC.; CISCO SYSTEMS INC.; INTERNAL 11 REVENUE SERVICE; and PFIZER INC., 12 Defendants. 13 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Complaint and ex parte Application to 14 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF Nos. 1; 2. For the reasons discussed below, 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and Plaintiff’s 16 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Joseph A. Stanford commenced this suit on June 28, 2024, against 19 Defendants Microsoft Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc., and the Internal 20 Revenue Service (IRS). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Id. Plaintiff 1 paid the $405 filing fee but simultaneously submitted an application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis. Id.; ECF No. 2. Defendants have not been served.

3 DISCUSSION 4 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the district court is required 5 to screen a complaint filed by a party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. 28

6 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 7 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 8 The court must dismiss the case if it determines that the action “fails to state a 9 claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

10 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim 11 upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.”

13 Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 14 F.3d 1122, 1127-31 (9th Cir. 2000)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a 15 complaint must comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 8. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rule

17 8 requires the complaint to allege “a short and plain statement of the grounds for 18 the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 19 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). A complaint fails to

20 state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it lacks a cognizable legal theory 1 or lacks sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica 2 Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

3 The court construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, affording him the 4 benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 5 omitted). However, the court is not required to “accept as true allegations that are

6 merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable influences.” 7 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 Even assuming this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, 9 Plaintiff has not met his burden under Rule 8(a)(2) to provide a short and plain

10 statement of his claims showing he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s complaint spans 11 111 pages and is largely unintelligible. Although the complaint mentions the 12 Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Plaintiff’s

13 Miranda rights1 in passing, it does not allege a specific legal violation committed 14 by Defendants, nor does it supply a specific factual basis for the claims in issue. 15 The handwritten portion of the complaint asserts “thefts of properties” and “foul 16 play competition” as a factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims and directs the Court to

17 review the typed attachment for further information regarding Plaintiff’s claims. 18 ECF No. 1 at 4. The typed attachment, however, fares no better. For example, 19

20 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 498 (1966). 1 Plaintiff’s first issue statement reads: 2 Plaintiff Joseph A. Stanford and Softwho include claims of violations of Amendment 4 right to secure of placid facts against defendants and 3 suspicions against all corporations wherein illegal responses to society as totality reference and illegal of products to improve without 4 responses no act being an act of silence to respond being responsible and finally defendants maintained knowledge of supremacy values 5 whereto received levels of breaches and levels of support level . . .

6 ECF No. 1-1 at 43 (grammar and spelling in original). Among the injuries 7 sustained, Plaintiff claims he incurred “aging facial and public death threats.” ECF 8 No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff seeks 900 billion dollars, full immunity, and citizenship to 9 Australia or Canada. ECF No. 1 at 5. 10 As the foregoing makes clear, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comport with 11 the pleading requirements of Rule 8. As such, the Court must dismiss the 12 complaint and deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND 15 Unless it is absolutely clear that amendment would be futile, a pro se litigant 16 must be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to correct any deficiencies.

17 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded by statute, 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), as recognized in Aktar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 19 2012). The Court finds it absolutely clear that no amendment will cure the

20 deficiencies in Plaintiff's complaint. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. 2 SEALING STATUS 3 Plaintiff's complaint 1s presently unsealed and contains an unredacted photocopy of his U.S. passport. ECF No. 1 at 7-8. This private information, which 1s available on the public docket, could compromise Plaintiff's personal security. 6|| The Court therefore finds a compelling reason exists to sua sponte seal pages 7 and 7\| 8 of the complaint. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (a district court’s decision to seal a judicial record must be 9|| based on a compelling reason supported by specific factual findings) (citations omitted). 11}} ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 13]| Plaintiff's ex parte Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 15 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and judgment in 16|| favor of Defendants, furnish a copies to Plaintiff, seal pages 7 and 8 of Plaintiff's 17|| complaint (ECF No. 1), and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED July 15, 2024. 19 CO, ae gp aes fijnios 0. ee 20 ne Xe THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge