Holmes-James v. King County Court et al

Filing 10

ORDER declining to issue summons in this matter and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 5/4/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

GENEVA HOLMES-JAMES,

9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12
13

CASE NO. C17-0321RSL

KING COUNTY COURT, et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT

Defendant.

14
15

On March 22, 2017, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was

16

granted and her complaint was accepted for filing. The nature of plaintiff’s claim or

17

claims is difficult to discern, however. It appears that plaintiff was denied counsel in a

18

previous lawsuit aimed at (a) defending against a government lien, (b) seeking custody

19

of her children, and/or (c) recovering property held by various California banks. She

20

identifies three defendants (two of whom appear to be judicial officers), but mentions

21

only one of them in her statement of claim. Plaintiff may be seeking damages for the

22

failure to appoint counsel in the earlier lawsuit or she may be requesting assistance in

23

this case so that she can pursue one or all of those matters here.

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of

25

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint need not

26

provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere
ORDER REQUIRING MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
PAGE – 1

1

speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

2

555 (2007). The Court has reviewed the pleading under the standards articulated in 28

3

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and finds that plaintiff has not met her burden. Plaintiff has not

4

alleged any facts raising a plausible inference that the judicial officers, who are entitled

5

to absolute immunity from suits related to actions taken in their judicial capacity, could

6

be held liable in this action. Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008)

7

(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1871)). Nor is the Court able to

8

decipher a cognizable claim against Lonnie C. Gulley. Plaintiff alleges that her property,

9

including wills, titles and deeds to buildings, and “$100,000,000,000.00 plus a five

10

dollar, 10 dollar, twentie dollars, 1 dollar, and one was okayed by the court’s to Lonnie

11

C. Gulley”. Dkt. # 6 at 3. Receiving an award of damages or property at the direction of

12

the court does not suggest wrongdoing or liability: additional facts would be needed to

13

present a plausible claim for relief against this defendant.1

14
15

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue summons in this

16

matter. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before May 4, 2017, an amended

17

complaint which clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which each defendant is

18

accused, how those acts violated plaintiff’s legal rights, and the relief requested. The key

19

to filing an acceptable amended complaint will be providing enough facts that one could

20

conclude that plaintiff has a right to relief that is as least plausible. The amended

21

complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to timely file an

22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court notes that, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to relitigate the validity of a
government lien, she has not alleged facts showing that this Court has jurisdiction over what
appears to be a claim by the state. To the extent plaintiff is challenging a child custody
determination, that issue falls squarely within the domestic relations exception to federal
diversity jurisdiction. Thompson v. Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986); Atwood
v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, any claim by
this California resident against the banking institutions of California would not trigger federal
jurisdiction, as there is no indication of a federal question or diversity of citizenship.
ORDER REQUIRING MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
PAGE – 2

1

amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal of this

2

action.

3
4
5

The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite
Statement on the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, May 5, 2017.

6
7
8
9

Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REQUIRING MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
PAGE – 3