Barton v. United States Senate

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's 5 complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the U.S. Mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 HERMAN LEE BARTON JR., 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 CASE NO. C17-1105JLR v. 12 UNITED STATES SENATE, 13 Defendant. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Herman Lee Barton Jr.’s complaint (Compl. 16 17 (Dkt. # 5)) and Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue’s order granting Mr. Barton in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”) status and recommending that the court review his complaint pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuing summons (IFP Order (Dkt. # 4)). The court 20 finds that Mr. Barton’s claims are frivolous and that he fails to state a claim. See 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). The court also finds that amendment of Mr. Barton’s 22 // ORDER - 1 1 frivolous claims would be futile. The court therefore DISMISSES Mr. Barton’s 2 complaint with prejudice pursuant to Section 1915. 3 4 II. BACKGROUND Mr. Barton sues Defendant United States Senate for failing to set a sufficient 5 monthly social security benefit in Whatcom County, Washington. (Compl. at 2.) He 6 asserts that the minimum cost of living in Whatcom County is $1,775.00 per month, or 7 $21,300.00 per year, and that irrespective of whether a disabled person has paid federal 8 taxes, “the cost of living is still the cost of living.” (Id.) Accordingly, he seeks to hold a 9 jury trial on the cost of living and obtain declaratory and injunctive relief setting these 10 cost of living values for purposes of calculating social security benefits. (Id. at 3.) He 11 also asserts that disabled people “should have” a constitutional right to a good quality of 12 life. (Id. at 2.) 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 16 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Telesaurus 17 VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). “A claim has facial plausibility 18 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 19 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 20 The court, however, need not accept as true a legal conclusion presented as a factual 21 allegation. Id. Furthermore, although “the allegations of [a pro se plaintiff’s] complaint, 22 ‘however inartfully pleaded’ are held ‘to less stringent standards than normal pleadings ORDER - 2 1 drafted by lawyers,’” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 2 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)), dismissal remains appropriate where “a liberal construction 3 does not remedy the palpable deficiencies in [the] complaint,” Wallmuller v. Russell, 4 No. C14-5121RBL-JRC, 2014 WL 2475978, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2014). 5 The allegations in Mr. Barton’s complaint do not give rise to a plausible inference 6 of liability and evince the frivolity of his claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 7 Mr. Barton fails to identify any legal authority supporting entitlement to the relief he 8 seeks or this court’s ability to effectuate that relief. (See Compl. at 2-4.) Indeed, Mr. 9 Barton tacitly acknowledges that he has no constitutional right that supports the relief he 10 seeks. (Id. at 2 (arguing that disabled people “should have” a constitutional right to 11 “good quality of life”).) Furthermore, United States Senators enjoy immunity for actions 12 taken in their legislative capacity. See San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of L.A., 159 F.3d 470, 13 476 (9th Cir. 1998). Finally, to the extent Mr. Barton challenges his social security 14 benefit, the United States Senate is not the appropriate defendant, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 15 this suit is not the appropriate vehicle, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481, and he appears to 16 already have a lawsuit pending in this district that challenges his benefits, see Barton v. 17 Berryhill, No. C17-0609DWC (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 10 at 2 (suing Acting Commissioner 18 of the Social Security Administration Nancy A. Berryhill for paying insufficient 19 benefits); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 21 (“[C]ourts have also held that an IFP complaint that merely repeats pending or previously 22 litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of [Section ORDER - 3 1 1915].”). Accordingly, the court concludes that Mr. Barton’s lawsuit fails to state a 2 claim for relief and is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). The incurable 3 legal shortcomings make it “absolutely clear” that amendment could not remedy the 4 defects in Mr. Barton’s complaint, and the court accordingly denies leave to amend. 5 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 7 8 9 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the court DISMISSES Mr. Barton’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Dated this 2d day of August, 2017. 10 A 11 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 4

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?