Bruesch v. Winco Foods ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 NATALIE BRUESCH, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00113-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 13 WINCO FOODS, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On January 29, 2022, Plaintiff Natalie Bruesch filed a complaint against Winco Foods in 18 Edmonds, Washington. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff Bruesch is bringing this case without an 19 attorney to represent her (in other words, pro se). See generally id. 20 On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff Bruesch’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted 21 because she appears to financially qualify for that status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Dkt. 22 No. 5. In that order, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended review of the complaint 23 24 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Id. The Court is required to dismiss a case if it determines that 2 the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain 4 types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (internal 5 citation omitted). The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established where (1) the 6 complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 7 United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of different states) and the 8 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 9 Plaintiff alleges that she was exiting a store in September 2020 when two store 10 employees approached her; Plaintiff alleges that one of the store employees grabbed her “with 11 excessive force” and then “shove[d]” her into an “interrogation room.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5. 12 According to her account, the employee then told police she had assaulted him, and Plaintiff 13 “spent the night in jail for trying to defend [herself] from the attack.” Id. She alleges damages of 14 $375,000 due to physical and emotional harm. Id. 15 The only cause of action presented in Plaintiff Bruesch’s complaint is under 18 U.S.C. 16 §241, for conspiracy against rights. Dkt. No. 6 at 3. This is a federal criminal statute that private 17 citizens cannot enforce. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff 18 Bruesch cannot bring a civil suit on the basis of this statute, her complaint fails to state a claim 19 upon which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Mendoza v. Inslee, 3:19-cv-06216-BHS, 2020 WL 20 1271574, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2020) (dismissing, among other things, a claim brought 21 under 18 U.S.C. § 241). This Court does not appear to have subject matter jurisdiction over this 22 case as Plaintiff has neither plead a proper federal cause of action nor established diversity 23 jurisdiction. 24 1 This Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants and holds them “to less 2 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 3 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted). But a court “should not supply essential 4 elements of the [pro se] claim that were not initially pled.” E.g., Henderson v. Anderson, 2:19- 5 cv-00789-RAJ, 2019 WL 3996859, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2019) (internal citation and 6 quotation omitted); see also Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., 409 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1031 (W.D. Wash. 7 2019) (“[C]ourts should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants.” (quoting Noll v. 8 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). Also, “it is axiomatic that pro se litigants, 9 whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.” 10 Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court is also mindful that, except 11 where “it is ‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 12 amendment,’ ” that a pro se plaintiff should be given opportunity to amend their complaint. 13 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (internal citations 14 omitted). 15 Therefore, Plaintiff Bruesch’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. She may file an 16 amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order (i.e., by June 16, 2022). 17 Dated this 17th day of May 2022. 18 A 19 Tana Lin United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24