Leal de la Hoz v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

HELIO J. LEAL DE LA HOZ,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., and the
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
) CASE NO. C18-0260RSM
)
) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
) AMEND COMPLAINT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Pro Se Plaintiff Helio J. Leal de La Hoz, a Seattle resident, filed his Complaint on

16

February 22, 2018. Dkt. #5. Summonses have not yet been issued.
17
18

Plaintiff alleges that he has been a victim of “sabotage,” that he has lost under “strange

19

circumstances” three laptops he purchased from Amazon.com, and ultimately “the evidence he

20

has against Amazon is evidence against the government.” Dkt. #5-3. He alleges violations of

21

“18 U.S.C. § 2340A – Torture,” “18 U.S.C. § 1117 – Conspiracy to Commit Murder,” 18 U.S.C.

22
23

§ 1111 – Murder,” and “adrenaline poisoning.” Id.

24

As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of

25

establishing that his case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

26

511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); In re Ford Motor

27

Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the
28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the

2

federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors

3

Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936). Further, the

4

Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or

5

malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
6
7

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

8

In this case, Mr. Leal de La Hoz fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction in his

9

Complaint. He fails to adequately explain how each of the Defendants have violated the federal

10

statutes that he asserts as the bases of this claims. This is particularly problematic given the

11

exhibits attached by Plaintiff, wherein Plaintiff discusses numerous alleged actions taken by
12
13

others who are not the named Defendants, nor appear to be related in any way to the named

14

Defendants. See Dkt. #5, Exs. 1-34. As a result, Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies

15

that, if not corrected in an Amended Complaint, require dismissal.

16

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint

17
18

no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. In the Amended Complaint,

19

Plaintiff must include a short and plain statement demonstrating to the Court that there is a legal

20

basis for his claims. Plaintiff shall identify conduct the named Defendant only has committed

21

that allegedly violated his rights.

22

In addition, Plaintiff is reminded that he is not to include personal identifiers in his

23
24

Amended Complaint, such as complete bank or credit card account numbers, social

25

security numbers, and the like, and that such information should be redacted or removed

26

from his documents before filing.

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1
2
3

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Leal de La Hoz at 77 S. Washington St.,
Seattle, WA 98104.
DATED this 26 day of February, 2018.

4
5

A

6

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 3