Zayas v. City of Seattle

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C24-1613-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On October 7, 2024, the Honorable Brian 16 A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 17 pauperis. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) was entered shortly thereafter. Upon 18 reviewing the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court, amongst other things, ordered 19 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint establishing her standing in this matter through facts 20 supporting a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Dkt. No. 7.) 21 According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include a short plain 22 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, along with a description of the claim 23 establishing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a description of the relief sought. See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 8. And because subject matter jurisdiction is a foundational issue, the Court must dismiss 25 a complaint any time it determines that it has no jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Safe 26 Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (allegations must support the 1 court’s subject matter jurisdiction). 2 In addition, as part of the case-or-controversy requirement, a plaintiff must establish that 3 he or she has standing to bring suit in federal court. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 4 561 (1992). To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injury is “concrete, 5 particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable 6 by a favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (citation 7 omitted). An injury sufficient to convey standing must actually exist or be certainly impending. 8 See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016); Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409. 9 Moreover, once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss it before 10 service if it is frivolous or “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). To 12 avoid dismissal, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 13 claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). The 14 factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 15 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint may be dismissed if it lacks 16 a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Zixiang 17 v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013). 18 The Court holds pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading standards than represented 19 plaintiffs and liberally construes a pro se complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 20 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Nevertheless, section 1915(e) “not only permits but 21 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” 22 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. When dismissing a complaint under § 1915(e), the Court gives pro se 23 plaintiffs leave to amend unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could 24 not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed what she described as an amended complaint. (See 26 Dkt. No. 8.) It contains additional argument, allegations, and accusations (some of which take 1 issue with the Court), (id. at 1, 9), and a copy of the original complaint, (id. at 10–15). None are 2 responsive to the Court’s prior order. The amended complaint fails to establish Plaintiff’s 3 standing to assert claims relating to her adult son’s death. And even if it had, the amended 4 complaint fails to state a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Therefore, it does not 5 establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Not does it state a claim for relief which this 6 Court could provide. 7 Based on the forgoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and 8 DENIES leave to further amend the complaint.2 9 DATED this 19th day of November 2024. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 As before, it fails to provide facts supporting an Equal Protection violation; identify the person allegedly acting under the color of state law violating such right; or state the specific policy, 24 practice, or custom implicating municipal liability for such a failure. See generally Dkt. No. 8. 25 2 Leave to amend need not be provided when doing so would be futile. Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff’s unresponsiveness to the Court’s 26 detailed order to show cause demonstrates her inability to effectively plead a colorable claim.