Beesla v. Sabha ( 2021 )

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 MANJINDER SINGH BEESLA, Case No. 2:21-cv-1154-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 15 GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On September 8, 2021, the Honorable 20 Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, granted pro se Plaintiff Manjinder 21 Singh Beesla’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, while recommending the 22 complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. Having reviewed the 23 complaint, the Court DISMISSES the complaint. Dkt. ## 1, 6. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court is required to dismiss an in forma 26 pauperis plaintiff’s case if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a 27 claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant 1 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. 2 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma 3 pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). 4 In his complaint, Plaintiff Manjinder Singh Beesla (“Plaintiff”) states his claim as 5 follows: 6 Countering my civil rights fight of hate crime in social justice without courts. 7 Aiding in my death threat along with my mother in law Manjit Kaur. And Wife Kuldip Kaur Beesla. Unsafe worship place and living place home since 2006. 8 9 Dkt. # 1-1 at 4. He requests relief in the form of “retirement, medical health condition of 10 severe sickness done by social justice operated without any cause and hearings.” Id. He 11 asserts that he is not able to work and requests $5,000,000. Id. Plaintiff also attaches a 12 “demand letter,” ostensibly addressed to Defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha, wherein he 13 alleges that Defendant “acted as an internal dispatch of social justice, where hunting goes 14 on for fifteen years without any cause or hearings.” Dkt. # 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that 15 his wife and mother-in-law were “involved in hidden abuse in [Defendant’s] internal 16 operations without any cause and hearings.” Id. Plaintiff then demands a “justice check 17 of 5 million in [the] law suit against illegal operations along with Internal Department of 18 Police of India and Police of USA.” 19 Plaintiff’s statements do not constitute a cognizable claim. In the absence of any 20 factual allegations supporting any discernable cause of action on which relief may be 21 granted, the Court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a 22 claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may, however, amend the complaint 23 within 21 days of the Order. “Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure 24 the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an 25 opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 26 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 27 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 3 prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the 4 Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order by filing an amended complaint 5 that corrects the deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this action without leave 6 to amend. 7 DATED this 9th day of September, 2021. 8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27