Monoian v. Comprehensive Mental Health et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ECF No. 9 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT without prejudice. Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. FILE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (TR, Case Administrator)

1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Jul 27, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
BARBARA ANN MONOIAN,

No. 1:18-CV-3023-SMJ

5
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT

6
v.
7
8

COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL
HEALTH; YAKIMA MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL,

9
Defendants.
10
11

Plaintiff Barbara Ann Monoian, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

12

filed a Complaint in this Court on March 12, 2018, ECF No. 7. The Court reviewed

13

the complaint for legal sufficiency and directed Plaintiff to file an amended

14

complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 7, 2018. ECF No. 9. The

15

Court again reviewed the complaint for legal sufficiency and directed Plaintiff to

16

file an amended complaint by July 1, 2018 or risk dismissal of the claim. ECF No.

17

10. Defendants in this case have not been served.

18

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court must screen claims

19

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the claim is one upon which

20

relief may be granted. In assessing whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT- 1

1

has been satisfied, a court must first identify the elements of the plaintiff’s claim(s)

2

and then determine whether those elements could be proven on the facts pled. A

3

court should generally draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, see

4

Sheppard v. David Evans & Assocs., 694 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012), but it

5

need not accept “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement,” Ashcroft

6

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation

7

omitted).

8

The Court conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff’s complaint on April 24,

9

2018. For the reasons set out in the Court’s order, ECF No. 8, the Court determined

10

that the complaint did not assert claims upon which relief could be granted. The

11

Court directed Plaintiff to amend her complaint. On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an

12

amended complaint. The Court screened the amended complaint and determined it

13

did not cure the defects identified in the first complaint. The Court again directed

14

Plaintiff to amend her complaint by July 1, 2018 or risk dismissal of the complaint.

15

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court. The document

16
17
18
19
20

states:
Your Honor, Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.
Salutations, peace be with thee.
I am responding to you at your request.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Rescript
Post Script
P.S.
Holy Writ

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT- 2

1
2

Totidem Verbis
Please see
Ephesians 6:10–21

3

ECF No. 11. Plaintiff did not submit any other filings to the Court before the July

4

1, 2018 deadline to file a second amended complaint.

5

Even construing Plaintiff’s June 11, 2018 filing liberally, it does not appear

6

to be a pleading or a motion. The document contains no facts or legal claims.

7

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to file a second amended

8

complaint by the July 1, 2018 deadline and Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

9

is dismissed without prejudice.

10

In forma pauperis status requires two findings: (1) a finding of indigency,

11

and (2) a finding that the underlying claim has some merit. Bradshaw v.

12

Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28

13

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial

14

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard

15

is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an individual “seeks

16

appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

17

438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it

18

lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

19

(1989).

20

The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT- 3

1

faith because it would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the

2

Court hereby revokes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, is DISMISSED without
prejudice.

5
6

2.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED.

7

3.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

9
10

provide copies to Plaintiff at her last known address.
DATED this 27th day of July 2018.

11
12

__________________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT- 4