Leal de la Hoz v. Kleen-Tech Services Corporation

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and denying Plaintiff's 7 MOTION to Appoint a Deputy Marshal to execute service of summons and complaint upon Defendant. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

HELIO J. LEAL DE LA HOZ,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-1579-JCC

KLEEN-TECH SERVICES CORPORATION,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s minute order directing

16

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8). On October 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge

17

James Donohue granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4). On

18

December 7, 2017, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

1915(e)(2)(B) and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days. (Dkt. No. 8.)

20

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the allotted time.

21

In his complaint, Plaintiff does not cite to any laws that the Defendant violated, but

22

appears to allege that his former employer wrongfully withheld wages owed to him. (Dkt. No. 5

23

at 2.) He also asserts, however, that the Colorado Department of Labor investigated this issue

24

and ultimately awarded him the unpaid wages and a monetary penalty. (Id.) Plaintiff attached

25

documents to his complaint that show Defendant paid him the wages and monetary penalty.

26

(Dkt. Nos. 5-3, 5-4, 5-5.) Notwithstanding the apparent administrative resolution of his claim,
ORDER
C17-1579-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant still owes him the unpaid wages because he “could have incurred

2

in debt” an amount equal to the unpaid wages “counting on his wages” being paid. (Id.)

3

Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant owes him “the value in dollars of the time spent

4

resolving this matter . . . i.e. the time spent resolving this matter as equivalent to hourly attorney

5

fees, FRCP 54(d)(2)(A-C).” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks attorney fees in the amount of $472,500. (Id. at

6

5.) Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to impose exemplary damages totaling $100,000,000. (Id.)

7

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis

8

complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or

9

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. “[A] complaint must

10

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

11

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

12

544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

13

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

14

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

15

Plaintiff has not alleged facts that demonstrate his claim for relief is plausible. By

16

Plaintiff’s own admission, Defendant made payments that “take care of unpaid wages and

17

penalties imposed by the Colorado Department of Labor.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff’s claim that

18

he “could have incurred debt amounting to [the original amount owed] counting on his wages” is

19

entirely hypothetical and does not give rise to a plausible inference that Defendant is liable for

20

misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff’s claim is also frivolous because it “lacks an

21

arguable basis in fact or law.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff cites to no

22

law, and the Court is not aware of one, that would support his speculative claim for relief.

23

Plaintiff’s request for “the value in dollars of the time spent resolving this matter . . . i.e.

24

the time spent resolving this matter as equivalent to hourly attorney fees” is not supported by the

25

law. Unless specified by a statute, a pro se plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney fees.

26

See Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F.2d 1411, 1411–12 (9th Cir. 1987) (collecting cases finding that a
ORDER
C17-1579-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

pro se civil rights litigant is not entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988). Plaintiff cites

2

no statute or precedent to suggest he is entitled to such fees. Finally, his claim for $100,000,000

3

in exemplary damages is facially frivolous. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538

4

U.S. 408, 425 (2003) (“[F]ew awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and

5

compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.”)

6

Even in applying the Ninth Circuit’s directive to construe pro se complaints liberally, the

7

Court cannot find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hebbe v.

8

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). In its earlier order, the Court gave Plaintiff 21 days to

9

file an amended complaint in order to fix the above-mentioned deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 8.)

10

Plaintiff has filed to file an amended complaint within the allotted time period.

11

The Court has again reviewed the complaint and concludes that this suit raises frivolous

12

claims. Plaintiff fails to set forth causes of action plausibly linked to the alleged facts and asks

13

for an award of damages that is facially frivolous. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissal is

14

warranted.

15

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. As such,

16

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a Deputy Marshall to execute a service of summons and complaint

17

on Defendant (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. The Clerk is

18

further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at 77 S. Washington St., Seattle, WA

19

98104.

20

DATED this 3rd day of January 2018.

A

21
22
23

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1579-JCC
PAGE - 3