Zuniga v. King County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALBERT R. ZUNIGA, 8 Cause No. C21-1030RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 10 DEFINITE STATEMENT KING COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On August 10, 2021, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and 14 his complaint was accepted for filing. The complaint lists twenty-one defendants including, but 15 not limited to, banking entities (Navy Federal Credit Union), politicians and local governmental 16 17 entities (Mayor Jenny Durkan and King County), federal agencies (Department of Defense), 18 medical providers (University Health System of San Antonio, Texas, and Dr. Robert C. Schenk 19 from New Mexico), corporations (Google and Lockheed Martin), and individuals (Jesse 20 Sepulveda and Mark Manning). Dkt. # 8 at 1-6. Plaintiff asserts that cruel and unusual 21 punishment, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, and domestic terrorism are at issue. Id. at 22 23 6. 24 The factual bases for plaintiff’s claims are not clear. He states that the “defendants 25 wittingly and/or unwittingly participated in intentional, pre-meditated murder cover-up, 26 attempted murder.” Id. at 8. Unidentified defendants are alleged to have inflicted indignities on 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 plaintiff, engaged in malpractice, fabricated justifications to arrest plaintiff and sell him into 2 incarceration, hacked plaintiff’s banking and social media accounts, and terrorized plaintiff, 3 forcing him to move from Texas to Washington. Id. at 9. 4 The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see 6 7 Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), finds that plaintiff’s 8 complaint is deficient for the following reasons: 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint will be dismissed unless it states a 11 cognizable legal theory that is supported by sufficient facts to state a “plausible” ground for 12 relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless 13 14 Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). All well-pleaded allegations are presumed to 15 be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. In re Fitness 16 Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013). Although a complaint need not 17 provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere speculation 18 that plaintiff has a right to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The named defendants are identified 19 20 only in the list of parties, with no mention in the factual allegations or the statement of claims. 21 Defendants - and the Court - would have to guess what acts they are supposed to have committed 22 and how those acts relate to, much less establish, a violation of the Eight Amendment, 23 interference with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, or domestic terrorism. At a bare 24 minimum, Rule 8(a) mandates that plaintiff “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim 25 is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 26 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The complaint fails to serve this vital purpose. 2 To the extent plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his 3 constitutional rights, he has not alleged state action on the part of the numerous individuals and 4 private corporations/associations named as defendants. 5 6 7 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue a summons in this matter. 8 Plaintiff may have a viable claim against one or more of the named defendants, but, if so, it 9 cannot be discerned from the complaint and its attachments. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to 10 file on or before September 7, 2021, an amended complaint which clearly and concisely 11 identifies the acts of which each named defendant is accused and how those acts violated 12 plaintiff's legal rights. The key to filing an acceptable amended complaint will be providing 13 14 enough facts that each defendant has sufficient notice to mount a defense and from which one 15 could plausibly infer that plaintiff has a viable legal claim and a right to relief against each 16 defendant. The amended complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to 17 timely file an amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal 18 of this action. 19 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on 21 the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, September 10, 2021. 22 23 Dated this 11th day of August, 2021. 24 25 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 26 27 ORDER REQUIRING A MORE