Perales v. Boehner et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Amended Pleadings due by 6/8/2012. by Senior Judge Donald W Molloy.(Ethridge, Deborah) cc: sent pltf a copy of this Order via USPS. Modified on 5/18/2012 (TF).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN BOEHNER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________ )

No. 12-cv-456-DWM

ORDER

Azael Dythian Perales filed a complaint on March 21, 2012, alleging that
the defendants violated a variety of state and federal statutes. Perales is appearing
pro se and moves to proceed in forma pauperis.
Perales submitted a declaration that shows he lacks sufficient funds to
prosecute this case. The declaration satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), and the Court grants Perales’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This
action may proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is
1

directed to file Perales’s lodged complaint as of the filing date of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Since Perales is proceeding pro se, his complaint is subject to preliminary
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that–
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal–
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
The Court will review Plaintiff’s pleading to consider whether this action can
survive dismissal under the provisions of section 1915(e)(2), or any other
provision of law. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138, 1142 (9th
Cir. 2005).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell A. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This

2

“plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
In other words, a plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The allegations in a complaint must rise above the level of mere
speculation, but need only “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal evidence of” a basis for liability. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56.
In determining whether this standard is satisfied, the court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005).
But the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Nor is the court required to accept
as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation, 536 F.3d
1049, 1055 (9th Cir.2008). Assessing a claim’s plausibility is a “context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Here, Perales’s complaint is 28 pages long—25 of those pages are the
caption, where Perales lists myriad government officials as defendants. In the
3

remaining three pages, Perales lists several statutes that he claims the defendants
violated. Perales does not specify which defendants violated which statutes. Nor
does he provide any factual allegations regarding those violations.
Perales’s complaint falls far short of the Iqbal and Twombly standard
discussed above. As a result, it is subject to dismissal on each of the grounds given
in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (including the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), since
many of the defendants might be immune from Perales’s claims). Nevertheless, the
Court will permit Perales to amend his complaint in compliance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Iqbal and Twombly. Should he fail to do so within the
time allotted, his complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and this case will be
closed.
IT IS ORDERED that Azael Dythian Perales’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (doc. 1) is GRANTED. This action may proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is directed to file Perales’s lodged complaint
as of the filing date of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Azael Dythian Perales may file an
amended complaint by June 8, 2012. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide him
with a form for filing an amended complaint. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),
Perales’s amended complaint shall set forth a short and plain statement of (1) his
4

claims against each individual defendant showing that he is entitled to relief, (2)
the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction over this action, and (3) the facts which
indicate that the District of Montana is the proper venue for this lawsuit.
At all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately
advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall
be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” Failure to file a NOTICE
OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff is advised that his failure to prosecute this action, to comply with
the Court’s orders, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may
result in this case being dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). The Court may dismiss this case under Rule 41(b) sua sponte
under certain circumstances. See e.g. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633
(1962); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683,
689 (9th Cir. 2005).
Dated this 18th day of May 2012.

5