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).

Download PDF
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

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?