Caston v. Bezos ( 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 Charles Caston, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-01165-RAJ 12 v. ORDER 13 Jeff Bezos, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On October 8, 2021, the 17 Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, granted pro se Plaintiff 18 Charles Caston’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, while recommending the 19 complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. # 5. For the reasons 20 below, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Caston’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 6. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 24 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 25 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 27 1 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 2 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 3 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 4 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 5 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 6 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 2:14-cv-00378-RSM, 2014 WL 9 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 10 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 11 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 12 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 13 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 14 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 15 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 16 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 17 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 18 Mr. Caston’s complaint contains a single allegation: “Defendant stole my money 19 thru fraud and embezzlement.” Dkt. # 6 at 5. “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as 20 true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Here, the only allegation that Mr. Caston 22 offers is a legal conclusion unsupported by facts. Because the Court need not take that 23 allegation as true and because no other allegation remains, Mr. Caston fails to state any 24 claim. 25 In the absence of any factual allegations supporting any discernable cause of 26 action on which relief may be granted, the Court must dismiss the complaint without 27 prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may, 1 however, amend the complaint within 21 days of this Order. “Unless it is absolutely 2 clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of 3 the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the 4 action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 5 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mr. Caston’s complaint is DISMISSED without 6 prejudice. Dkt. # 6. Mr. Caston may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) 7 days of this Order. Mr. Caston also filed an Attachment for Temporary Restraining 8 Order, which this Court construes as a motion for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. # 7. 9 Because the Court dismisses Mr. Caston’s complaint, the Court DENIES the motion 10 (Dkt. # 7) as moot. 11 12 DATED this 18th day of October, 2021. 13 A 14 15 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27