Warren Lee Weisman v. Ronald Lee Wyden, U.S. Senator of Oregon, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01966
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 WARREN LEE WEISMAN, Pro Se, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01966-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 RONALD LEE WYDEN, U.S. Senator 11 of Oregon, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13 INTRODUCTION 14 The Court raises this matter of its own accord. Pro se Plaintiff Warren Lee 15 Weisman pursues this action against Defendants in forma pauperis (“IFP”). After 16 reviewing the complaint, Dkt. No. 6, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court 17 finds that Weisman fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Rather 18 than dismissing this case outright, the Court grants Weisman leave to amend the 19 complaint within 14 days of this order. 20

23 1 2. DISCUSSION 2 1.1 Legal standard. 3 When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, Section 1915 requires the Court to dismiss the 4 action if the Court determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To survive Section 1915 review, 7 a complaint must meet the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal 8 Rules of Civil Procedure. While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, 9 “it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 10 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint “must contain 11 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 12 on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A 13 claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 14 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 15 alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides only 16 “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 17 action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 18 At the same time, “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice.” Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 8(e). Therefore, a “document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro 20 se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards 21 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 22 (2007) (citations omitted). Courts are not to “dismiss a pro se complaint without 23 1 leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint 2 could not be cured by amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.

3 2015) (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker 4 v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam))). But even so, the 5 duties imposed on the Court by Section 1915 are unwavering, and when an IFP 6 plaintiff fails to state a claim, the action must be dismissed. 7 1.2 Weisman’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. 8 Weisman’s complaint names several Defendants but fails to allege unlawful 9 conduct attributable to any Defendant. He alleges that in 2007, he moved to Oregon 10 to start a renewable energy company “based on anaerobic digestion of organic waste 11 into flammable biogas.” Dkt. No. 6 at 3. He asserts that he “proposed a biogas bus 12 demonstration project . . . [but it] was summarily denied by Defendant Susie 13 Smith,1 a member of the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Management 14 Commission. Id. Weisman alleges that Smith’s husband, Defendant Alan Zelenka, 15 consults for a company that proposed a project similar to his the following year. He 16 states that complained to Defendant Rick Wallace of the Oregon Department of 17 Energy, and Wallace did not “address[] the problem of copyright infringement.” Id. 18 at 4. 19 Separately, Weisman alleges that Defendant Ethan Nelson of the City of 20 Eugene inspected his prototype, “yet refused to assist securing grant financing for 21 22 1 The Court has modified citations to the Complaint, which capitalizes Defendants’ 23 names throughout. 1 commercialization . . . [w]hile helping to secure millions in foreign financing for the 2 ill-conceived Junction City Biomethane Plant Plaintiff advised against, planned

3 by . . . biogas company owner [Defendant] Dean Foor.” Id. Weisman states that 4 while he has been unable to secure additional funding from the State of Oregon for 5 his project, “JC Biomethane, Kennedy Jenks, and Oregon solar panel 6 manufacturers including now-failed First Solar, continue to receive hundreds of 7 millions in public money . . . from Lane County and State of Oregon, including 8 federal subsidies [that his] company did not require through the offices of U.S.

9 Senator Ronald Wyden and U.S. Representative Peter Defazio.” Id. at 5. 10 Weisman asserts, generally, that Defendants conspired with prosecutors to 11 arrest and detain him for five years as retaliation for him exercising his First 12 Amendment rights. Id. at 2. Weisman does not state why he was arrested or what 13 he was charged with. See generally id. And—save for a vague reference to copyright 14 infringement—his prayer for relief does not clarify what his causes of action are. 15 Based on the complaint’s factual allegations, the Court cannot draw a “reasonable

16 inference that the defendant[s] [are] liable for . . . misconduct[.]” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 17 at 678. 18 Finally, Weisman’s claims against U.S. Senator Ronald Wyden and U.S. 19 Representative Peter Defazio appear barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 20 Generally, plaintiffs cannot sue agents and officers of the United States unless 21 Congress has waived the sovereign immunity of the United States. Munns v. Kerry,

22 782 F.3d 402, 412 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A]ny waiver must be unequivocally expressed in 23 statutory text and will not be implied.” Id. (citation modified). If the plaintiff does 1 not establish waiver, then “courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over cases

9 against the [federal] government.” Jd. (alteration in original) (“We conclude that the

3 plaintiffs have not alleged a waiver of sovereign immunity that would confer subject 4 ||/matter jurisdiction on the district court.”). Weisman has failed to state what cause

5 (or causes) of action he pursues against Wyden and Defazio, nor has he alleged a

G source of waiver. Accordingly, sovereign immunity appears to bar any claim against 7 these Defendants.

8 3. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court FINDS that the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 6, 10 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. But rather than dismissing the case outright, the Court GRANTS Weisman leave to amend the complaint and le ORDERS Weisman, within FOURTEEN (14) days of this Order, to submit an amended 13 complaint that states a claim on which relief may be granted. Failure to do so will 14 || vesult in dismissal of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 15 The Clerk is directed to place this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s 16 calendar for 14 days from the date of this Order. It is so ORDERED. 18 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. 19

United States District Judge

22 23