Allen v. Persons who access my personal neurons and information be they in a computer or in my brain

Filing 5

ORDER Dismissing Complaint. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Nor is the basis of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction clear from the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is also frivolous. Se e Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir.1987). Both deficiencies may be curable through amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1 -1) without prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. 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

LOIS WILLOW ALLEN,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-1595-JCC

THE PERSONS WHO ACCESS MY
PERSONAL NEURONS, et al.,

13
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lois Allen’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 4.) Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), district courts have authority to review IFP complaints and must dismiss them if “at
any time” it is determined that a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
It is not clear against whom Plaintiff brings suit. She names, in general, persons “who
access my personal neurons and information be they in a computer or in my brain.” (Dkt. No. 11). But a specific defendant need be named. That being said, she describes general misdeeds by
McDonalds, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon in her complaint, but fails to state a cognizable legal
claim against any. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Nor is the basis of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction clear from the

ORDER
C17-1595-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

complaint. Therefore, the complaint is also frivolous. See Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819

2

(9th Cir.1987). Both deficiencies may be curable through amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809

3

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt.

4

No. 1-1) without prejudice.

5

DATED this 6th day of November 2017.

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1595-JCC
PAGE - 2