Garcia v. Equifax et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting Defendants' 20 22 Motions to Dismiss and denying Plaintiffs' 26 32 Motions to Amend. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM) Modified on 8/16/2017: copy sent to Plaintiff via the U.S. Mail (PM).

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOSE ANGEL GABRIEL GARCIA,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-0158-JCC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER, et
al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22)
and Plaintiff’s motions to amend (Dkt. Nos. 26, 32.) Having thoroughly considered the parties’
briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS
Defendants’ motions and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for the reasons explained herein.
Plaintiff Jose Angel Gabriel Garcia alleges a violation of the Fair Credit and Reporting
Act (FCRA) against Defendants Carolinas Medical Center and Medical Data Systems. (Dkt. No.
1-1 at 2.) Plaintiff seems to claim that Defendants have been violating the FCRA since 2012 by
using “false and misleading information in credit reports in order to deny [him] credit, loans, and
other financial services.” (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1.) He claims that purported violations “resulted in the
loss off [his] leg due to homelessness during April 2014 to October 2014.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3.)
He also seems to believe that Defendants intended to “exterminate” him. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2.)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 1

1

Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing Plaintiff fails to state a claim and that

2

any claims alleged are time barred. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) In response, Plaintiff has filed an

3

opposition and two motions to amend. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 32.) His opposition and motions do not

4

allege any new, relevant facts with specificity as is required. For example, he puzzlingly alleges

5

that Goldman Sachs and AIG International are “about to enter into the biggest merger in the

6

history of the U.S.” in order to “gain immunity against federal regulators.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.) In

7

a letter to the Court, he also claims that “the people of the State of North Carolina,” which

8

presumably includes Defendants, are “entering in a conspiracy with the people of other states to

9

undermine the economy of the State of Washington.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 1–2.)

10

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s filings are replete with conclusory allegations and

11

lack the specificity required. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009) (“[T]he

12

pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it

13

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”); Bell Atl.

14

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Although pro se parties like Plaintiff are “held to

15

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

16

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), pro se litigants “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern

17

other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by

18

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff’s complaint and proposed

19

amendments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not alleged a

20

cognizable legal theory against either Defendant because he fails to allege coherent and specific

21

facts that give rise to a claim. Moreover, the proposed amendments would be futile. See United

22

States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the Court GRANTS

23

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to amend

24

(Dkt. Nos. 26, 32). Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court directs the

25

Clerk to CLOSE the case.

26

//

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 16th day of August 2017.

4

A

5

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 3