McGlown v. Lewis et al

Filing 14

ORDER of dismissal without leave to amend by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 MEREDITH MCGLOWN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 CASE NO. C17-924 RAJ ORDER v. ANN LEWIS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, motion for a petition showing severity of crimes, and motion for sealed health care records. Dkt. ## 5, 10, 11. For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice, thereby terminating the pending motions. On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against two superior court judges whom Plaintiff believes to have engaged in terrorism, printing U.S. currency, child sex slave rings, drug trafficking, fraud, identity theft, and murder. Dkt. # 4 (Complaint). In doing so, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable James P. Donohue granted the application. Dkt. # 3. The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court determines that 27 ORDER- 1 1 “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 2 granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 4 (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 5 prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 6 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to 7 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 8 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied Plaintiff’s anti-harassment order because 9 Defendants were involved in illegal behavior. Dkt. # 4 (Complaint). Plaintiff also claims that 10 her case in front of the Defendants was dismissed because she refused to sign a document 11 agreeing to pay fees, and she alleges that the U.S. Attorney will track her down and charge her 12 for such payments. Id. Plaintiff further alleges knowledge about terrorist plots and a war 13 involving Canada. Id. Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider a decision—presumably one made 14 by Defendants. Id. On the whole, Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, incomprehensible, and 15 in disarray. These allegations lack any basis in fact and fail to state a plausible claim for which 16 any type of relief could be granted by this Court. 17 Taking these allegations as true and construing them liberally, the Court concludes that 18 Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. The Court 19 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 20 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal without leave to amend is proper where “it is absolutely clear 21 that no amendment can cure the defect”). In doing so, Plaintiff’s remaining motions are MOOT. 22 Dkt. ## 5, 10, 11. 23 Dated this 15th day of August, 2017. 24 A 25 26 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 27 ORDER- 2

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?