Morgan v. Sentry Insurance Company LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Case Management Deadline set for 6/19/2017. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SK, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

WILLIAM H. MORGAN,
NO: 2:16-CV-286-RMP
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

9
10
11

SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY
LLC, et al.,
Defendant.

12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No.

14

20. The Court ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint be filed without payment of the

15

filing fee due to Plaintiff’s meeting the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.

16

ECF No. 6. The Court previously determined that Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, ECF

17

No. 1; Construed Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8; and his First Amended

18

Complaint, ECF No. 13, all failed to state a plausible legal claim, but due to

19

Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court granted leave to file another Amended

20

Complaint. See ECF Nos. 12 and 19.

21
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ 1

1

On January 19, 2017, the Court stated in unambiguous terms that, “Plaintiff

2

may file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this

3

Order. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, the Court will dismiss this case WITH

4

PREJUDICE.” ECF No. 19 at 10. Plaintiff did not file anything within that

5

timeframe and only filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 7, 2017. Based

6

on the untimely filing of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, this case could be

7

dismissed. However, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended

8

Complaint as if Plaintiff had met the Court’s deadline.

9

The Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and

10

detailed in its Order the ways in which the First Amended Complaint was legally

11

insufficient. Despite having been given those guidelines, Plaintiff has refiled the

12

same deficient claims, 1 but with a two-page introduction that alleges wrongdoing by

13

various “Officers in the Court.” ECF No. 20 at 2-3.

14

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if “the

15

action or appeal: (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

16

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

17

immune from such relief.” The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s First

18

Amended Complaint pursuant to subsection (ii) of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing

19
20

1

21

omitted from the Second Amended Complaint.

One page of the First Amended Complaint appears to have been accidentally

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ 2

1

to state a claim. See ECF No. 19. The Court’s previous analysis remains unchanged

2

regarding the claims that Plaintiff simply refiled in his Second Amended Complaint.

3

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, even with his

4

minor additions, fails to address the deficiencies previously identified by the Court

5

and fails to state a viable legal claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff still fails to establish

6

either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff

7

states that this is his “Last Attempt.” ECF No. 20 at 24. If Plaintiff seeks to amend

8

his complaint to identify viable legal claims and subject matter jurisdiction in this

9

Court, he should file his Third Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of

10
11
12
13

this Order, or his case will be closed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 20, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, to set a 30 day case

14

management deadline, and to provide copies of this Order to counsel and pro se

15

Plaintiff.

16

DATED May 19, 2017.

17
18
19

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

20
21
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ 3