McGlown v. Mellburg Financial Group Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. In doing so, Plaintiff's remaining motions are MOOT. Dkt. ## 5 , 6 . Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

Download PDF
1 2 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 MEREDITH MCGLOWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 15 ORDER v. 14 CASE NO. C17-1815 RAJ MELLBURG FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and 20 Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. ## 5, 6. For the reasons that follow, the Court 21 DISMISSES this case with prejudice, thereby terminating the pending motions. 22 On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff Meredith McGlown filed this action against 23 Defendants Mellburg Financial Group, Inc. (“Mellburg”), Hidaya Foundation, and 24 Fernando Godinez. Dkt. ## 1, 4. In doing so, Plaintiff submitted an application to 25 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler granted the 26 application. Dkt. # 3. 27 Plaintiff alleges Mellburg broke a contract made in 2007 to transport her son “to ORDER- 1 1 the Madera area and to deliver him to Canada.” Mellburg allegedly broke this contract 2 by giving her son drugs and when an accident occurred that resulted in in the death of her 3 son. Id. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 5) and a Motion for 4 Protective Order (Dkt. # 6). On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 5 against Mellburg, omitting Defendants Hidaya Foundation and Fernando Godinez. 6 Plaintiff makes no mention of Godinez in the Amended Complaint, and states that she is 7 the trustee of Hidaya Foundation, Inc. and “the Emirates of Saudia”. Dkt. # 9 at 1. 8 Plaintiff also makes no mention of the alleged contract with Mellburg in her Amended 9 Complaint. 10 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 12 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 13 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 14 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 15 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 16 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 17 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 18 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 19 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 20 Plaintiff alleges that her name was “fraudulently signed” in order to gain her assets 21 and that she is “fully aware of the threats, the coercion, the murders, the kidnappings.” 22 The Amended Complaint is eight pages with an additional thirteen pages of exhibits. On 23 the whole, Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, incomprehensible, and in disarray. For 24 example, Plaintiff alleges that “the assets of [t]he Emirates of Isreal [sic]” were obtained 25 through a “[h]ostile takeover of the Sheik of the Emirates of Isreal [sic]. He was raped, 26 held hostage, drugged, and left with no means to care of Himself and by the time I 27 arrived, his mother, trustee and guardian of the Estate it was compromised. He was taken ORDER- 2 1 to Canada by a man named Abilla Mohammed.” Dkt. 9 at 5. These allegations lack any 2 basis in fact and fail to state a plausible claim for which any type of relief could be 3 granted by this Court. 4 Taking these allegations as true and construing them liberally, the Court concludes 5 that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. The Court 6 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 7 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal without leave to amend is proper where “it is 8 absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect”). In doing so, Plaintiff’s 9 remaining motions are MOOT. Dkt. ## 5, 6. 10 11 Dated this 12th day of June, 2018. 12 A 13 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?