Thomas Fuller v. Christine Apartments LLC; Dimension Properties Inc; Desta Springer; John and Janes Does 1-10

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05823
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 THOMAS FULLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-05823-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO 10 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS CHRISTINE APARTMENTS LLC; 11 DIMENSION PROPERTIES INC; DESTA 12 SPRINGER; JOHN AND JANES DOES 1- 13 10, 14 Defendants. 15

16 Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiff Thomas Fuller’s motion for leave to file a 17 first amended complaint, Dkt. 13, and Mr. Fuller’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 14. 18 Plaintiff’s initial complaint did not “sufficiently plead[] a claim under federal law,” nor did it 19 “identify a basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims.” 20 Dkt. 5 at 4–5. As a result, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file a proposed amended complaint 21 that established “(1) the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, (2) the claims asserted against 22 Defendants, (3) specific facts that Mr. Fuller believes support each claim, and (4) the relief 23 requested.” Id. at 7. “Otherwise, the Court [would] dismiss his complaint without prejudice.” Id. 24 1 Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 6, and the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims 2 || without prejudice because Plaintiff had “not fixed the deficiencies in his proposed amended 3 complaint,” Dkt. 11. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs motions to file an amended complaint and 4 || to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. 5 “Dismissal of a case without prejudice preserves a plaintiff's right to refile his claim.” 6 || Cohan v. Lombardo, No. 2:17-CV-01651-JCM-NJK, 2024 WL 4374043, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 2, 7 2024) (citing Com. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 8 1999)). “However, after a case has been dismissed without prejudice, a plaintiff must file his 9 complaint in a new case and not refile it in the dismissed case.” /d. (first citing Frost v. Nat’l Sec. 10 || Agency, 2018 WL 6822632, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2018); then citing Stine v. Wiley, 2010 WL 3516634, 11 *1 (D. Colo. 2010)). 12 Mr. Fuller may pursue the new claims he has identified, but he must do so by filing his 13 complaint and his IFP motion in a new case, because this case has been closed. The motions filed 14 at Dkt. 13 and 14 are therefore DENIED. 15 The Clerk is respectfully requested to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel 16 of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 17 18 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2025.

20 Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO