Leal de la Hoz v. Hush Communications Canada Inc

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing Plaintiff's claims and closing case. Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 HELIO J. LEAL DE LA HOZ, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. HUSH COMMUNICATIONS CANADA, INC. 12 13 Defendant. ) ) CASE NO. C17-1465 RSM ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) ) ) ) ) ) 14 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s Order Directing Plaintiff 16 to Amend Complaint. Dkt. #6. Pro Se Plaintiff Helio J. Leal de La Hoz has been granted leave 17 to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #4. The Complaint was filed on September 28, 18 2017. Dkt. #5. Summons has not yet been issued. 19 20 Plaintiff’s claims relate to his “hushmail” email account with Defendant Hush 21 Communications Canada, Inc. Plaintiff appears to make claims of theft and fraud arising from 22 Defendant’s October 23, 2016, disabling of Plaintiff’s account “because they had received a large 23 number of complaints denouncing my messages as spam.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he has lost access 24 to important documents and “intellectual Property, whose value I estimate in trillions of dollars.” 25 26 Id. Plaintiff also seeks as damages compensation for Plaintiff’s “adrenaline poisoning,” and to 27 be compensated for his time “litigating this evidence-based claim,” which Plaintiff calculates at 28 over 10,000 hours. Id. Plaintiff seeks total damages of “1,001,011,380,000.00 USD.” Id. ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1 1 On September 29, 2017, this Court issued an Order Directing Plaintiff to Amend 2 Complaint. Dkt. #6. In that Order, the Court noted that “Plaintiff appears to base federal 3 jurisdiction on diversity…. However, Plaintiff has failed to present credible evidence that the 4 damages at issue in this case exceed the statutory requirement of $75,000.” Dkt. #6 at 2 (citing 5 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). The Court found that Plaintiff’s valuation of his email account at “trillions 6 7 of dollars,” was facially frivolous. Id. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to 8 set forth causes of action, citing theft and fraud only in passing. The Court warned that 9 “Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not corrected in an Amended Complaint, 10 require dismissal.” Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within twenty- 11 one days. Id. Plaintiff has failed to take any action and the deadline has passed. 12 13 As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of 14 establishing that his case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 15 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); In re Ford Motor 16 Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the 17 18 pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the 19 federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors 20 Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936). Further, the 21 Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or 22 malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 23 24 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 25 The Court has reviewed the record and finds that this suit raises frivolous claims. Plaintiff 26 fails to set forth causes of action plausibly connected to the facts, requests an amount in relief 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2 1 2 3 4 that is facially frivolous, and fails to set forth facts establishing diversity subject matter jurisdiction. Given all of this, dismissal is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 1) Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. 2) This matter is CLOSED. 3) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Leal de La Hoz at 77 S. 5 6 7 8 Washington St., Seattle, WA 98104. 9 10 DATED this 27th day of October, 2017. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3

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?