Peden v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington, et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 21 days of this order, signed by Judge Chief Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 Case No. C17-1610RSM CRAIG PEDEN, Plaintiff, 9 ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 v. 11 12 CATHOLIC CHARITIES, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pro Se Plaintiff Craig Peden filed his Complaint on October 30, 2017. Dkt. #3. At the 16 same time, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction, which the Court construed as a 17 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), and ultimately denied. Dkts. #4 and #5. 18 19 Summonses have not yet been issued. 20 Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Catholic Charities agreed to pay his rent for October 21 through the end of his lease in December 2017. Dkt. #3. He also appears to allege some type of 22 retaliation and discrimination, although he has not alleged that he is a member of any protected 23 class, nor has he provided the details of such allegations. See id. Plaintiff apparently received a 24 25 Notice of Belief of Abandonment related to an apartment in Everett, which also notes that his 26 lease will be terminated on October 31, 2017, unless he informs the manager of his intent not to 27 abandon his property, an address at which he can be served with certified mail, and his current 28 ORDER - 1 1 2 rent due. Dkt. #3, Attachment. The circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s allegations and request are not apparent from the Complaint or the motion itself. 3 As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of 4 establishing that his case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 5 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); In re Ford Motor 6 7 Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the 8 pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the 9 federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors 10 Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936). Further, the 11 Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or 12 13 malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 14 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 15 16 In this case, Mr. Peden fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction in his Complaint. He fails to explain how Defendant has violated any federal or other law. Indeed, it is not entirely 17 18 clear what Plaintiff alleges in this Complaint, where he currently lives, and if he is actually being 19 evicted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not corrected in an 20 Amended Complaint, require dismissal. 21 22 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. In the Amended Complaint, 23 24 Plaintiff must include a short and plain statement demonstrating to the Court that there is a legal 25 basis for his claims. Plaintiff shall identify what law or laws it believes Defendant has violated 26 through its alleged conduct. 27 28 ORDER - 2 1 2 3 The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Peden at 1425 Broadway, #232, Seattle, WA 98122. DATED this 31 day of October, 2017. 4 5 A 6 7 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 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?