United States of America, et al v. Safeco Insurance Company, et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this case, as it is not a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. The Complaint filed at Docket 13 is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Leave to amend is not granted. Signed by Judge Sharon L Gleason. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON

ELLEN MCCRACKEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,

Case No. 2:18-cv-0452-SLG

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Ellen McCracken has filed an amended complaint at Docket 13 pursuant
to this Court’s order at Dockets 10 and 11. For the reasons set forth below, this Court
dismisses this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Preliminarily, the Court addresses the fact that this case has been filed under seal.
Ms. McCracken has asserted that this is a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act. That
Act prohibits false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States, and authorizes
civil actions to remedy such fraud, including actions by private individuals in the
Government’s name. 1 Neither Ms. McCracken’s original complaint nor her more recently
amended complaint at Docket 13, liberally construed, constitute any such claim.
Therefore, the entire case should be unsealed.

Unsealing the case is particularly

warranted so that this case is in the public record in the event Ms. McCracken seeks to
file another case with these same or similar allegations. 2

1

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).

2

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (effect of involuntary dismissal).

In this Court’s order of May 9, 2018, the Court dismissed Ms. McCracken’s first
complaint, but accorded her an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The order gave
Ms. McCracken the following directions as to how to draft a complaint that states a claim
upon which relief may be granted:
[A] complaint should set out separate claims for relief. Each claim should
identify the specific harm that [Ms. McCracken] is alleging has occurred,
when and where that harm was caused, who she is alleging caused that
specific harm, and what specific law she is alleging was violated as to that
specific harm. If she is asserting a claim against a judicial officer, she
should explain why she believes the doctrine of judicial immunity would not
apply to that claim. 3
Ms. McCracken has not complied with these directions and her amended
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. She has completed a
form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, which repeatedly references a document she
titles a “Relator’s Report.” That document is a 198-page document that she filed with the
amended complaint at Docket 15. On review, it appears to contain very much the same
information, if not identical statements in a somewhat different order, as the first 198-page
complaint that the Court previously rejected for failure to state a claim. In the section of
the complaint form where she is asked to “[s]tate as briefly as possible the facts of your
case,” she responded, “Ellen M. McCracken cannot relive these incidents without
suffering PTSD. She needs medical care, supervision, support, and legal assistance by
appointment of counsel to revisit[] the scene of the crimes.”4 When asked to specify the
“date and approximate time” that the events giving rise to the claim occurred, she

3

Docket 10 at 5-6.

4

Docket 13 at 6.

2:18-cv-00452-SLG, McCracken, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company, et al.
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
Page 2 of 4

responded “2008-2018.” 5 These are only a few examples of the many deficiencies in the
filing.

The amended complaint has many of the same deficiencies as the original

complaint and will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
When a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court “should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” 6 However, leave to amend is properly denied as to
those claims for which amendment would be futile. 7 “Leave to amend may also be denied
for repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendment.”8 “The district court's
discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously
amended the complaint.” 9 Because Ms. McCracken has repeatedly failed to state a valid
claim for relief, both in this Court and in the prior cases described in this Court’s previous
order, the dismissal of the amended complaint shall be with prejudice and without leave
to amend.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this case, as it is not a qui tam action
under the False Claims Act.

5

Docket 113 at 7.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

7

Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d
193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
8

Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008).

9

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990).

2:18-cv-00452-SLG, McCracken, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company, et al.
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
Page 3 of 4

2. The Complaint filed at Docket 13 is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Leave to amend is not granted, for the reasons set forth
herein.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 12th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:18-cv-00452-SLG, McCracken, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company, et al.
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
Page 4 of 4