Besada v. United States Department of States National Visa Center

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS)cc Besada

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

AMANY FAHIM BESADA,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10

Case No. C12-1715RSL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATES NATIONAL VISA CENTER,

11

Defendant.

12
13

On November 13, 2012, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint

14

which clearly indicates that the United States has consented to suit. Plaintiff,

15

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserts that the United States Department of

16
17
18

States (sic) National Visa Center’s (“NVC”) denial of her application to become a
permanent resident of the United States and the lengthy decision-making process
prohibited her from undergoing a second surgery to treat a cyst in her neck. She seeks
money damages to cover the cost of her surgery and compensation for suffering. She

19
20
21

also requests that the Court order NVC to locate a neurosurgeon to perform the second
surgery.
When the Court grants in forma pauperis status, the proposed complaint is

22

subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). “Section 1915([e]) is designed largely to

23

discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless

24

lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing

25

suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The Court

2

has the power to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim on

3

which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

4

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

5
6
7

Having reviewed plaintiff’s submissions in this matter, the Court finds that
dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff still has not alleged any facts from which the Court
may infer that the United States has consented to suit. Such waiver cannot be implied.
Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 765 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985).

8
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 10) is
9
10

dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
DATED this 17th day of December, 2012.

11
12
13

A

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2