Melton v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 14

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff file an amended complaint curing the defects identified by the Court no later than 14 days from the date this order is issued. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (MW)(cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

KENNETH MELTON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C20-0152-JCC
MINUTE ORDER

v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:

17

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On February 7, 2020, the Honorable

18

Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

19

proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 7.)

20

Once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss it prior to service if it

21

“fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); see Lopez v.

22

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain

23

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

24

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a

25

right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

26
MINUTE ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

(2007). The complaint may be dismissed if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient

2

facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013).

3

Plaintiff’s complaint purports to seek a “no contact order contain community online

4

torchor devices and softwear.” (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.) 1 In support of his request, Plaintiff alleges that

5

“Sins 7-26-15 documents, images, data will show I’m [illegible] there torchoring device. I’m

6

stating look befor you call me crazy. [Illegible] softwear, [illegible], brain waves, frequency,

7

radio broadcasting electric [illegible] data, hard drive softwear + satalight otheration droin use.

8

By a crimal investigation.” (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff proceeds to set forth an extensive list of

9

Defendants, including Google Inc., Firefox Mozilla, the FBI, and Walmart Headquarters. (See id.

10

at 2–13.) The conclusion of Plaintiff’s complaint states that he is “requesting all softwear data.

11

All my e-mails data. Google Maps + locations Bluetooth links.” (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff has attached

12

to his complaint a verification of insurance benefits and correspondence related to his child

13

support obligations, but does not explain the relevance of those documents. (See Dkt. No. 8-1 at

14

1–3.)

15

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a

16

threshold matter, Plaintiff has not pleaded that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his

17

claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; (see generally Dkt. No. 8). The complaint also does not

18

state what law entitles Plaintiff to relief or a cognizable legal theory under which he may

19

recover. See Zixiang, 710 F.3d at 999. And the complaint does not set forth factual matter that,

20

accepted as true, states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664.

21

Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 2

23
24
25
26

1

Quotes from Plaintiff’s complaint are set forth verbatim.

Plaintiff has filed several subsequent motions that appear to allege the same nucleus of
operative facts as the complaint but seek different forms of relief. (See Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 12.)
Those documents, if considered with the complaint for the purposes of this order, similarly fail to
2

MINUTE ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

Although the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

2

granted, the Court will not dismiss a case unless “it is absolutely clear that no amendment can

3

cure the [complaint’s] defect[s].” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).

4

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff file an amended complaint curing the defects

5

identified by the Court no later than 14 days from the date this order is issued. The Clerk is

6

DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

7

DATED this 21st day of February 2020.

8

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

9

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

assert a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims or a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129.
MINUTE ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 3