Harbord v. Bean et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to allege facts that give rise to a plausible inference that relief is warranted; ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's 4 MOTION for Extension of Time; directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of this order, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

HATSUYO HARBORD,
Plaintiff,

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

No. C17-349RSL
v.
MATTHEW BEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Proceeding pro se, plaintiff has filed a
complaint alleging various tort causes of action arising from an earlier employment
discrimination lawsuit that plaintiff filed several years ago. Dkt. # 1. Specifically, plaintiff sues
his former attorney, the opposing party’s attorney, and various defendants from that earlier case
for “fraud, mistake, conditions precedent, official documents, special damage.” Plaintiff’s
complaint also alleges discrimination by a number of Washington State Supreme Court clerks,
apparently due to their failure to print certain documents, but plaintiff has not named those
individuals as defendants.
The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally, see
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), finds that plaintiff’s
complaint is deficient. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to
raise a plausible inference that he is entitled to relief. Although a complaint need not provide

27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere speculation that

2

plaintiff has a right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

3

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain allegations sufficient to establish federal subject-

4

matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s claims against the named defendants are all state-

5

law claims, so for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, the parties must be

6

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1332(a) (establishing that the federal court’s basic diversity jurisdiction extends to “all civil

8

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of

9

different States”). And while plaintiff’s discrimination claim could conceivably seek relief

10

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal cause of action, plaintiff’s complaint does not allege facts

11

supporting a plausible inference of discrimination. Plaintiff’s allegations have failed to give rise

12

to a plausible claim for relief.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the

15

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to allege facts that give rise to a plausible inference

16

that relief is warranted. Plaintiff shall, within twenty-eight (28) days of this order, file an

17

amended complaint which remedies the deficiencies set forth above. If an acceptable amended

18

complaint is not filed within the time proscribed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. # 4) is DENIED as moot.

20
21
22

The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar
for April 26, 2017.

23
24

DATED this 29th day of March, 2017.

A

25

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2