Amoo v. National Couencil of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FILE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (TR, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Nov 08, 2017 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 4 LANCELOT AMOO, No. 2:17-CV-0243-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 6 v. 7 8 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Lancelot Amoo filed his complaint in this case on June 26, 2017. 12 ECF No. 2. Magistrate Judge Rodgers allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma 13 pauperis since he lacked sufficient funds to prosecute this case. ECF No. 3. 14 However, Magistrate Judge Rodgers also notified Plaintiff that his Complaint would 15 be reviewed for legal sufficiency. Id. Indeed, courts are obligated to dismiss cases 16 proceeding in forma pauperis if and when they determine that such a case is 17 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 18 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii); see also Lavelle v. Lavelle, No. CV-07-039-RHW, 2007 20 ORDER DISMISSING CASE- 1 1 WL 4418170 at *1 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 14, 2007) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 2 1122, 1126–27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)). 3 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 10, 2017. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff 4 alleges that the defendants, National Counsel of Examiners for Engineering and 5 Surveying (NCEES), have deprived him of his Engineer-in-Training Certificate on 6 six occasions by “rigging” his exams. ECF No. 5 at 4. He also alleges that 7 Defendants hacked into his computer, causing him loss of income and 8 psychological pain and suffering. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in 9 the amount of $539,000. Id. Plaintiff does not state the legal basis for his claim in 10 his complaint. Although Plaintiff does not state the legal basis for these claims in 11 her amended complaint, in her initial complaint she alleged that some of these 12 actions violated the Civil Rights Act. ECF No. 2 at 5. 13 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and is legally frivolous. Under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain 15 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To meet this 16 standard a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 17 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A 18 claim frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 19 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff here fails to state a plausible legal or 20 factual basis for a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. ORDER DISMISSING CASE- 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff Lancelot Amoo’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 4 2. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 6 7 The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this file. provide copies to pro se plaintiff. DATED this 8th day of November 2017. 8 9 __________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DISMISSING CASE- 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?