Custer v United States Department of the Treasury

Filing 29

ORDER dismissing pro se Plaintiff's 15 Complaint with leave to amend; denying as moot the following motions by Plaintiff: 10 Motion for Relief; 12 Second Motion to Amend; 13 Second Motion to Amend; 14 Motion for Writ of Attachment; 23 Fourth Motion for Relief and 26 Interim Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the this Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (PM)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 RICHARD WARD CUSTER, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. Case No. C18-669-RAJ ORDER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the 17 Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Richard Ward Custer’s complaint with leave to 18 amend. Dkt. # 15. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (Dkt. # 10), Second 19 Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 12), Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 13), Motion for Writ of 20 Attachment (Dkt. # 14), Fourth Motion for Relief (Dkt. # 23), an Interim Motion for 21 Default Judgment (Dkt. # 26) as moot. 22 On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant United States 23 Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff also submitted an 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. ## 1, 4. The Honorable Brian A. 25 Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt. # 5. Plaintiff subsequently filed several amended 26 complaints. Dkt. ## 6, 9, 11, 15. 27 28 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. ORDER – 1 1 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 2 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 3 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 4 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 5 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 6 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 7 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 8 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 9 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 10 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal 12 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 13 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 14 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule 15 requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all 16 reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 17 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to 18 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 19 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint 20 liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 21 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). 22 Plaintiff’s complaints are largely unintelligible and consist of lists of companies, 23 federal agencies, statutes, years, and names. The complaints are all essentially identical. 24 Many of Plaintiff’s allegations consist of long sentences, several of which are at least 25 fifteen lines long. Plaintiff consistently alleges that some component of the Federal 26 Government committed a tort or criminal act, and repeatedly mentions two homicides. 27 The Complaint does not contain any allegations explaining what these torts or criminal 28 ORDER – 2 1 acts were, how the homicides are related, or how these allegations are relevant to 2 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. While Plaintiff cites to several statutes, the 3 complaint contains no details regarding Defendant’s actions or how Defendant’s actions 4 violated those statutes. Even construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the 5 Plaintiff and giving due deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, his complaint fails to state a 6 claim showing he is entitled to relief. 7 For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Richard 8 Ward Custer’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 15. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 9 Motion for Relief (Dkt. # 10), Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 12), Second Motion to 10 Amend (Dkt. # 13), Motion for Writ of Attachment (Dkt. # 14), Fourth Motion for Relief 11 (Dkt. # 23), and Interim Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. # 26) as moot. Within 12 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended 13 complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if 14 Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is 15 otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action. 16 17 DATED this 26th day of October, 2018. 18 19 A 20 21 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?