Pigott v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 11

ORDER dismissing complaint with leave to amend. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for U.S. Marshal to Process Service (Dkt. # 5 ) and Motion for Default (Dkt. # 10 ) as moot. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOSEPH STANLEY PIGOTT,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C18-753-RAJ
ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the

16

Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Joseph Stanley Pigott’s Complaint with leave to

17

amend. Dkt. # 4. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for U.S. Marshal to Process

18

Service (Dkt. # 5) and Motion for Default (Dkt. # 10) as moot.

19

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants: Wells Fargo

20

Bank; Frano Cantor; the Branch Manager of a Wells Fargo Bank in Burien, WA; Joseph,

21

another Branch Manager of a Wells Fargo Bank; and Timothy J. Sloan, the Chief

22

Executive Officer of Wells Fargo. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff also submitted an application to

23

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida granted the

24

application. Dkt. # 3. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint that contains

25

the same allegations as his original Complaint. Dkt. # 8.

26

The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court

28

ORDER – 1

1

determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on

2

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

3

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203

4

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

5

complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis

6

in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails

7

to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

8

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

9

“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28

10

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal

11

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL

12

1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule

13

12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule

14

requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all

15

reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903,

16

910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to

17

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

18

Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint

19

liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing

20

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).

21

Plaintiff brings this complaint pursuant to the “Moorish-American Treaty of Peace

22

and Friend of 1787 & The United States Constitution of 1789, Federal Reserve Act of

23

1913 12 U.S.C. Code Section 411 & Section 16, 63rd Congress Session 2 Ch. 4-6 P.251,

24

House Joint Resolution 192-Public Law 73-10.” Dkt. # 8 at 3, 4. Plaintiff alleges that

25

“Joseph” the bank manager of a Seattle, WA branch of Wells Fargo Bank took 32 million

26

dollars from Plaintiff and did not pay him when he requested the money. Plaintiff alleges

27

that several branch managers took his “notes/bonds” and acted as though they were going

28

ORDER – 2

1

to help him open an account but instead copied his promissory notes and did not pay him

2

or give him a receipt for his money. Id. at 6. Plaintiff requests 32 million dollars in

3

punitive damages. Id.
Plaintiff’s complaints do not contain any allegations explaining how Defendants’

4
5

alleged actions violated the Constitution or any other state or federal law. Plaintiff

6

provides very few details about the alleged theft of his money or the circumstances under

7

which the named branch managers took his “notes/bonds” when he attempted to open a

8

banking account. All of Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be speculative and lack a basis in

9

law or fact. Even construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and

10

giving due deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, his complaint fails to state a claim

11

showing he is entitled to relief.

12

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Joseph

13

Stanley Pigott’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 8. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

14

Motion for U.S. Marshal to Process Service (Dkt. # 5) and Motion for Default (Dkt. # 10)

15

as moot. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an

16

amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that

17

timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable

18

claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the

19

action.

20
21

DATED this 31st day of October, 2018.

22

24

A

25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

23

26
27
28

ORDER – 3