Tahir v. Bangasser et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

OMARI TAHIR,

CASE NO. C17-0586JLR
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.
12
13

HUGH BANGASSER, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On May 7, 2017, after concluding that Plaintiff Omari Tahir’s complaint appears

16

frivolous and fails to state a claim, the court ordered Mr. Tahir to show cause why his

17

complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (OSC (Dkt.

18

# 5) at 1-4.) The court ordered Mr. Tahir to respond no later than May 19, 2017, and

19

cautioned that failure to timely show cause in response to the order would result in the

20

dismissal of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Id. at 4.) On May 22,

21

2017, three days after the deadline to respond, the court received Mr. Tahir’s response.

22

(Resp. (Dkt. # 6).)

ORDER - 1

In addition to being untimely, Mr. Tahir’s response confirms the frivolity of his

1
2

lawsuit. Mr. Tahir complies with the court’s order to show cause by identifying “which

3

defendants committed which alleged violations of law. ” (OSC at 4; see Resp. at 4-5.)

4

He asserts that various defendants violated RCW 59.18.312, RCW 49.60.040, and RCW

5

59.18.230. (Resp. at 4-5.) Those state law claims fail to confer jurisdiction over Mr.

6

Tahir’s claims because complete diversity is lacking between Mr. Tahir and the

7

defendants. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 4) ¶¶ 5-14); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Although he also

8

invokes his “freed slave’s treaty rights under the US Constitution’s Fourteenth

9

Amendment” (id. at 1) and the Thirteenth Amendment (id. at 2), he does so in an

10

irrelevant discussion of American history and does not tie those rights to the allegations

11

in his complaint (see id. at 1-4).
As the court noted, Mr. Tahir’s claims, as alleged, appear frivolous and fail to state

12
13

a claim. (OSC at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)).) To the extent Mr. Tahir

14

clarifies his claims in his response to the court’s order to show cause, he confirms that the

15

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. A complaint is frivolous under 28

16

U.S.C. § 1915 where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pratt v.

17

Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987); Gorski v. Cty. of Marin,

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

No. 07-cv-00322-JSC, 2017 WL 914327, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2017). Accordingly,

2

the court DISMISSES this case without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

3

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2017.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In its order to show cause, the court partially recounted Mr. Tahir’s extensive history of
frivolous litigation in the Western District of Washington. (5/8/17 Order at 3 (citing Tahir v.
Midtown Ltd. P’ship, No. C15-2017JCC (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 43 at 3; Midtown Ltd. P’ship v.
Tahir-Garrett, No. C16-1830JCC (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 11; Midtown Ltd. P’ship v.
Tahir-Garrett, No. C17-0587JCC (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 6; Tahir v. Sawant, No. C16-0413JLR
(W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 36; Tahir v. Eisenberg, No. C16-1621RSM (W.D. Wash), Dkt. ## 5, 7-9).)
The court cautions Mr. Tahir that filing future frivolous complaints may lead the court to
designate him a vexatious litigant and impose pre-filing requirements. See Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) (“The All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing
orders against vexatious litigants.”).
1

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3