Leal de la Hoz v. Sprint Corporation

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class 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

HELIO J. LEAL DE LA HOZ,

10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C18-0340-JCC
ORDER

v.

11

SPRINT CORPORATION,

12
13

Defendant.

14
15

Pro se Plaintiff Helio J. Leal de la Hoz has been granted leave to proceed in forma

16

pauperis in this matter (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff first filed a complaint against Defendant on

17

September 12, 2017. (Case No. C17-1362-JCC, Dkt. No. 4.) The Court dismissed the complaint

18

without prejudice, finding no basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 1 (Case No. C17-1362-JCC,

19

Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff re-filed his complaint on March 6, 2018, addressing the issues raised by the

20

Court in its prior dismissal. 2 (Dkt. No. 5.) Summons has not yet been issued, and the Court

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court issued an order advising Plaintiff of this deficiency and providing an
opportunity to amend; Plaintiff failed to respond within the allotted time. (Case No. C17-1362JCC, Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.)
Plaintiff’s newly-filed complaint details why he could not timely respond to the Court’s
order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 3.) The Court is sympathetic to the limitations Plaintiff
faces, but notes that the prior complaint was not dismissed solely because Plaintiff did not meet
its 30-day deadline; without amendment, there was no basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction
over the claims.
2

ORDER
C18-0340-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2

reviews Plaintiff’s filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff re-alleges facts asserted in his prior complaint. (Compare Case No. C17-1362-

3

JCC, Dkt. No. 4, with Case No. C18-0340-JCC, Dkt. No. 5.) He states that he attempted to make

4

a $40 payment on his Sprint bill at a Seattle Sprint location, but when the payment was

5

processed, it was credited to an account not belonging to him. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 1.) When he

6

brought the mistake to the attention of the store clerk and manager, they refused to correct it or to

7

refund the payment and mistreated him. (Id.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds that this

8

treatment amounted to an attempt to murder him through a “cognitive dissonance attack.” (Dkt.

9

No. 5-1 at 5.) He alleges resulting “adrenaline poisoning” and additional harm based on lack of

10

access to a cell phone. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks “restitution, payment of damages, and exemplary

11

punishment” totaling $3,004,561,840.00. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 11.)

12

As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish that his case

13

is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994);

14

In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). At the

15

pleading stage, this burden must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis

16

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

17

Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Additionally, the Court must dismiss an in

18

forma pauperis complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or

19

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

20

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in fact or law.”

21

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

22

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction in this

23

Court. For the Court to have jurisdiction based on diversity, parties must be residents of different

24

states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff has

25

amended his complaint to request an award of $3,004,561,840—a sum that includes

26

$2,00,001,200 in “exemplary punitive damages,” $1,000,000,600 in compensatory damages, and
ORDER
C18-0340-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

attorney fees for thousands of hours spent litigating his case at an hourly rate of $500. (Dkt. No.

2

5-1 at 11.)

3

Plaintiff’s claim for $3,000,001,800 in damages is facially frivolous. The facts pled do

4

not support a plausible basis for the amount of compensatory or punitive damages sought. (See

5

Dkt. No. 5-2) (Plaintiff requests approximately $1 billion in compensatory damages for “bodily

6

injury on account of potentially lethal adrenaline poisoning . . . [and] assault with intent to

7

commit murder” and property damages for “lost evidence” and inability “to access [an] iCloud

8

drive”); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325 (a “frivolous” complaint may include “inarguable legal

9

[conclusions]” and “fanciful factual [allegations]”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell,

10

538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003) (“few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and

11

compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process”). Furthermore,

12

Plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees is not supported by law. Unless specified by a statute, a pro se

13

plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney fees. See Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F.2d 1411,

14

1411–12 (9th Cir. 1987) (collecting cases finding a pro se civil rights litigant is not entitled to

15

attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Plaintiff cites no statute or precedent to suggest he is

16

entitled to such fees.

17

Finally, Plaintiff’s additional amendments fail to cure jurisdictional deficiencies.

18

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant violated federal and state criminal law do not provide a

19

basis for federal jurisdiction over this civil case. (See Dkt. No. 5-1 at 7–9.) Finally, Plaintiff’s

20

claim that the United States Government is a defendant in this case is not supported by the

21

record. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 6.) The complaint does not name the United States as a defendant, nor

22

does Plaintiff put forward any facts stating a claim against the Government. See Ashcroft v.

23

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

24

In its earlier order, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint to fix

25

the above-mentioned deficiencies, but he failed to do so. (Case No. C17-1362-JCC, Dkt. No. 5.)

26

Based on the facts in the record, the Court determines that further amendment will not cure
ORDER
C18-0340-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with

2

prejudice and without leave to amend. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465

3

F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (a court need not grant leave to amend where amendment would be

4

futile). The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

5
6
7

The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to Mr. de la Hoz at 77 S. Washington Street,
Seattle, Washington 98104.
DATED this 14th day of March 2018.

8

A

9
10
11

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0340-JCC
PAGE - 4