Waters v. Catamount Properties 2018 Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 2, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00150
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 02, 2023 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 STEVEN SCOTT WATERS, representing No. 2:23-CV-00150-SAB 9 Steve S. Waters (trust), 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 11 v. COMPLAINT WITH 12 CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES 2018, PREJUDICE 13 INC.; and SCHWEET LINDE & 14 ROSENBLUM, PLLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 1. 18 Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter. Plaintiff was granted in forma 19 pauperis status, and he filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on May 19, 2023. 20 ECF Nos. 4 and 5. 21 Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be 22 granted. The case is dismissed with prejudice, as any amendment of the Complaint 23 would be futile. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) REVIEW 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states that a district court shall dismiss a case at 26 any time, regardless of whether the filing fee has been paid, if the court determines 27 that the action is (i) frivolous or malicious or (ii) fails to state a claim upon which 28 relief may be granted. A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to 1 the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially 2 noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 3 32–33 (1992). 4 When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 5 relief can be granted, a court takes the factual allegations in the complaint as true 6 and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Balistreri v. Pacifica 7 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). On the other hand, mere legal 8 conclusions, “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 9 662, 679 (2009). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or 10 the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri, 11 901 F.2d at 699. 12 PLEADING REQUIREMENT 13 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain 14 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint 15 need not contain “‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an 16 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 17 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). That is, “a 18 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 19 U.S. at 555. Instead, a complaint must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief 20 that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. As the U.S. Supreme Court instructs:

21 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 22 to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 23 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 24 the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility 25 that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads fact 26 that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. 27 28 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations and quotations omitted). 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff argues Defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and numerous 3 federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that on April 4 27, 2023, a state court judge “assumed jurisdiction when challenged without written 5 proof.” Id. at 4–6. Plaintiff claims the judge denied his “right to enter testimony” and 6 “showed favoritism” to the adverse parties in the proceeding, which the Court 7 assumes to be Defendants in this case. Id. at 6. He also alleges the state court judge 8 ordered police officers to enter his property and evict him. Id. 9 Here, Plaintiff failed to present sufficient factual allegations against 10 Defendants. Section 1983 requires a defendant to be a “state actor” or “acting under 11 color of state law.” See Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 12 1167 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 337 (2021); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 13 632–33 (9th Cir. 1988). The named Defendants are not state actors. In addition, 14 Plaintiff’s claims pertain to actions by a state court judge, which are barred by 15 judicial immunity. Plaintiff did not state a claim against Defendants upon which 16 relief can be granted. 17 If it is clear that amendment of a pro se Complaint would be futile, the Court 18 may dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 19 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court finds amendment of the Complaint would be 20 futile. The case is dismissed with prejudice. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 5, is DENIED, a moot. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file. IT ISSO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to fil this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff. 8 DATED this 2nd day of June 2023. 9 10 11 12 Say Cea 14 Gi t= 15 Stanley A. Bastian 16 Chief United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28