Kelbessa v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 16

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within 20 days by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS) cc plaintiff

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BERHANU G. KELBESSA,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Case No. C17-323-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the
Court DISMISSES Plaintiff Berhanu G. Kelbessa’s complaint with leave to amend.
On March 1, 2017, Kelbessa filed this action alleging that Defendants City of
Seattle and Washington State Department of Social and Health Services have committed
a broad array of civil rights violations. Dkt. # 1-1. In doing so, Kelbessa submitted an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida
granted his application. Dkt. # 3.
The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to

23

certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these

24

requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines

25

that the complaint fails to state a claim: “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

26

court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be

27

granted. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not
just those filed by prisoners.”).
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378RSM, 2014 WL 1412302,
at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6)
permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the
court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all reasonable
inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir.
2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a
plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint liberally.
Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Kelbessa alleges that Defendants have forced him and other individuals into
homelessness, prevented them from accessing medical treatment, imposed conditions of
enslavement, subjected them to brain controlling technology, and committed other acts of
misconduct. Dkt. # 1-1. In addition to Defendants, Kelbessa identifies numerous other
entities and individuals as bearing responsibility for his alleged harm, including the FBI,
Washington State, unspecified countries and institutions, unnamed company executives,
and unnamed criminals. Id. at 4.
Taking these allegations as true and construing them liberally, the Court concludes
that Kelbessa has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Kelbessa’s
allegations are wholly conclusory, as they lack any detail whatsoever concerning the
specific conduct of the various entities and individuals named in the complaint. Kelbessa
himself appears to acknowledge this deficit in concluding that “details (as much as
possible) will follow.” Id. Without more, the Court concludes that Kelbessa’s complaint
ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

fails to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 568.
Kelbessa is entitled to an opportunity to amend the complaint. Lucas v. Dep’t of
Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The Court therefore grants
Plaintiff twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint
that states a valid claim for relief. If Kelbessa fails to timely comply with this Order by
filing an amended complaint that sufficiently addresses the deficiencies noted above, the
Court will dismiss this action without leave to amend. For the reasons stated above, the
Court DISMISSES Kelbessa’s complaint and grants Kelbessa twenty (20) days from the
date of this Order to file an amended complaint.

10
11

DATED this 5th day of April, 2017.

12

14

A

15

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3