Rodriguez v. Northwest Trustee Services Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's 9 Amended Complaint, by Judge Richard A Jones. (SWT) cc: Plaintiff via USPS

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MELIN T. RODRIGUEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

14

ORDER

v.

13

CASE NO. C17-1627 RAJ

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC., et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the
Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Melin T. Rodriguez’s Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 9.
On December 1, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to allege facts
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 8; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend his complaint. On December 20, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 9. The Amended Complaint is almost
identical to the original complaint and fails to cure its deficiencies. Plaintiff provides no
further information as to how Defendants denied his right to due process, or why the
trustee’s deed allegedly held by Defendants is not valid.

ORDER- 1

1

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. To

2 comply with Rule 8, Plaintiff must plead a short and plain statement of the elements of
3 her claim, “identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the
4 elements of a prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th
5 Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff must set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and
6 on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Penne, 84 F.3d
7 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, it is still unclear what Plaintiff’s claims are and
8 what facts support those claims. Further, Plaintiff must allege facts which support
9 damages in excess of $75,000 to remain in federal court. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods
10 Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). It remains unclear
11 how Plaintiff arrives at his $1,350,000 demand.
12

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended

13 Complaint. Dkt. # 9.
14
15

Dated this 8th day of January, 2018.

16

A

17
18

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER- 2