Turner v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 SUMMER DAWN TURNER, CASE NO. C22-0123-JCC 10 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, 18 United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 19 recommended the complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) prior to the issuance 20 of a summons. (Dkt. No. 4.) Once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss 21 it prior to service if it “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the 24 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The statement must 25 be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 26 1 which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This requires the 2 inclusion of sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible 3 on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Otherwise, the complaint must be 4 dismissed, either because it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient facts to support a 5 cognizable legal theory. Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated, refused shelter, and had her “emails and 7 personal accounts erased and stolen . . . including school/disability paperwork.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 5.) 8 She argues these acts constitute 5th, 6th and 11th Amendment violations. (Id. at 5.) In her 9 complaint, she names Washington State, Facebook, and BCforward as Defendants in this action. 10 (Id. at 2.) But Plaintiff fails to adequately allege which Defendant is responsible for which act 11 and how the acts violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See generally id.) Therefore, 12 Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to place Defendants on fair notice of the 13 nature of Plaintiffs’ claims. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not 15 be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff may do so by filing an amended complaint 16 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order. If, in the amended complaint, Plaintiff fails 17 to state sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory, the complaint will be dismissed. The 18 Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 19 20 DATED this 4th day of February 2022. 21 Ravi Subramanian 22 Clerk of Court 23 s/Sandra Rawski 24 Deputy Clerk 25