Cagliostro v. Collins

Filing 15

ORDER re 13 Order to Show Cause; directing Clerk to issue summons in this case. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

RITA CAGLIOSTRO,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. C18-425RSM
ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
FORREST R. COLLINS,

14
15

Defendant.

16

The instant matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s Order to Show

17

Cause, Dkt. #13. Pro se Plaintiff Rita Cagliostro has been granted leave to proceed in forma

18

pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #2. Summons has not yet been issued, Defendant Forrest R.

19
20
21

Collins has not appeared.
Ms. Cagliostro’s original Complaint was posted on the docket on March 27, 2018. Dkt.

22

#3. That same day the Court issued an Order directing Ms. Cagliostro to file an amended

23

complaint. Dkt. #4. On April 10, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed an improper Motion to Amend

24
25
26

her Complaint with attachments. Dkts. #5 and #6. On April 11, 2018, the Court issued an
Order directing Ms. Cagliostro to file a new Amended Complaint. Dkt. #9.

27

On April 23, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed the Amended Complaint at issue. Dkt. #11.

28

Ms. Cagliostro lists claims for violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, for

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, under certain other regulations and

2

statutes, and for violation of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct. See

3

Dkt. #11 at 3–4. However, these claims are only mentioned in name, and under a section titled

4

“Cause of Action,” Ms. Cagliostro only pleads one cause of action, negligence. See Dkt. #11 at

5
6
7

6–14. The events giving rise to this cause of action appear to have occurred solely in the fall of
2013. See, e.g., id. at 6 (“On (date) October, 24, 2013 at (place) Multnomah County Court, the

8

defendant(s): (1) performed acts that a person of ordinary prudence in the same or similar

9

circumstances would not have done; or (2) failed to perform acts that a person of ordinary

10
11
12

prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances…”) (parentheticals in
original). Events occurring more recently in the Amended Complaint appear to relate solely to

13

Ms. Cagliostro’s claims of ongoing damages, not new actions of the Defendant.

14

Cagliostro’s request for relief indicates that she is seeking hundreds of thousands if not millions

15

of dollars in damages related to her legal studies bachelor of science degree being placed on

16

Ms.

discharge status, as well as $500,000 in punitive damages, $1,000,000 in compensatory

17
18

damages, and “$3,800,000 for pain and suffering of defamation, triggers of estrangement with

19

my child and mother and loss of years building a real life with both of them.” Dkt. #11 at 15

20

(emphasis omitted). In her relief section, Ms. Cagliostro again reiterates that this relief is based

21

on a claim of negligence. See id.

22
23
24

Given the above, on April 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause stating
that it appeared Ms. Cagliostro’s claim was untimely and that her requested damages “do not

25

appear to be proximately caused by the actions of Defendant.” Dkt. #13 at 3. The Court

26

directed Plaintiff to write a short and plain statement telling the Court “(1) why her negligence

27

claim is timely, and (2) why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous.” Id. at 3–4. The

28

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1
2

Court stated “[t]his Response may not exceed four double-spaced (4) pages” and that
attachments were not permitted. Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).

3

On May 9, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed a 10-page document. The first page is a single-

4

spaced “Summary.” Dkt. 14 at 1. There is also a caption page, “Cover Letter,” four page brief,

5
6
7

signature page, and two pages of attachments. Although the Court appreciates Ms. Cagliostro’s
efforts to limit her briefing to four pages, the Court finds that she has included unique

8

arguments in her Summary and Cover Letter, and filed attachments. In sum, Ms. Cagliostro

9

violated the Court’s Order to Show Cause by exceeding the page limit in her Response.

10
11
12

Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed Ms. Cagliostro’s substantive arguments. With
regard to the Court’s first question, Ms. Cagliostro argues her negligence claim is timely given

13

Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160, which tolls the applicable statute of limitation if, “at the time the cause

14

of action accrues the person has a disabling mental condition that bars the person from

15

comprehending rights that the person is otherwise bound to know,” such tolling not to exceed

16

five years. See Dkt. #14 at 3. She also appears to argue that the discovery rule may apply to

17
18

her claim, such that she has two years from when she discovered or reasonably should have

19

discovered that she was harmed. See Dkt. #14 at 4. Ms. Cagliostro makes frequent reference

20

to her mental health and receiving treatment, stating at one point that she should be “considered

21

disabled due to the complexity of explaining the anomalies of this case injuries.” Id. at 7. The

22
23
24

Court finds that, although her briefing is extremely difficult to follow,1 she has adequately
responded to the Court’s first question.

25
26
27
28

1
For example, Ms. Cagliostro states “My rights cannot be determined unless candor exist. (Trump, Sessions verses
[sic] McCabe, News, 2018) Conclusion of the law is satisfied after both/all parties including me have been given
opportunity to be heard (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments).” Dkt. #14 at 5. As another example, Ms. Cagliostro
states “Article III assures plaintiff that a federal court hears claims of a crime that is a violation of federal law for
kidnapping conspiracy 18 U.S.C. ss 1201 or other kidnapping appropriate law, linking federal and states.” Id. at 7.

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3

The Court’s second question asked Ms. Cagliostro to explain why this case should not

1
2

be dismissed as frivolous. Ms. Cagliostro’s Response does not address the Court’s concern in a

3

clear manner. At one point, she states “[p]ain and suffering triggers caused proximately from

4

the actions caused by Mr. Collins are clearly recorded with my many clinicians since

5
6
7

September 20, 2014 and Social Security Office award specific to triggers and PTSD that I now
receive treatment for.” Id. at 7. She goes on to state, “Mr. Collins proximate causes [sic] in

8

injuries I have been ongoing to treatments for Mondays, Tues, Wednesdays, Thurs and

9

Saturdays in WA and OR every week for Four [sic] and a half years on kidnapping of my child

10
11
12
13

October 29, 2013.” Id. The Court has re-examined the Amended Complaint after reviewing
this Response, and believes that Ms. Cagliostro is asserting a negligence claim against former
opposing counsel in a court matter that separated Ms. Cagliostro from her child.2

14

Given all of the above, the Court finds that Ms. Cagliostro has sufficiently pled her

15

claim of negligence for Defendant Collins to be able to respond, and that the standard for

16

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) has not been met.

Accordingly, the Court

17
18
19

DIRECTS the Clerk to issue summons in this case. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order
to Plaintiff at 212 ALASKAN WAY S. #205 SEATTLE, WA 98104.

20

DATED this 14 day of May, 2018.

21

A

22
23

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Amended Complaint makes reference to a “court ordered parental mental health evaluation that Forrest
Collins was reckless with,” and “the opponent that Forrest Collins was providing service for.” Dkt. #11 at 11.

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4