Melton v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 22

ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and to close this case. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. **4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Kenneth Melton, Prisoner ID: 800337)(TH)

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

CASE NO. C20-0152-JCC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

12

MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On February 21, 2020, the Court, having

16

reviewed Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), found

17

that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (See Dkt. No. 14.)

18

Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint did not establish the Court’s subject

19

matter jurisdiction over his claims, did not identify what law entitled him to relief, did not offer a

20

cognizable legal theory under which he could recover, and did not set forth factual matter that,

21

accepted as true, stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face. (Id. at 2.) While the Court

22

found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the Court

23

granted Plaintiff leave to amend and accordingly ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

24

curing the defects identified by the Court within 14 days. (Id. at 3.)

25
26

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in response to the Court’s order. Instead, he
has filed a variety of motions and affidavits that do not cure the defects previously identified by
ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2

the Court or otherwise entitle Plaintiff to relief.
On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time until April 20, 2020. (See

3

Dkt. No. 16.) But that motion does not identify a Court deadline from which Plaintiff seeks relief

4

and largely repeats the factual allegations set forth in his complaint. (See id. at 1–2.) 1 Therefore,

5

Plaintiff has not established a basis for granting him an extension of time.

6

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to amend complaint and accompanying affidavit.

7

(Dkt. Nos. 15, 17.) As a threshold matter, Plaintiff was not required to seek the Court’s leave to

8

file an amended complaint; the Court’s previous order required Plaintiff to file an amended

9

complaint curing the defects in his original complaint identified by the Court. (See Dkt. No. 14.)

10

Plaintiff’s accompanying affidavit sets forth several documents unrelated to the instant action, a

11

“complaint of inaproprate operation use of security network softwear, data punishment

12

investigation,” and a motion “to be heard in open court civil rights complaint.” (See generally

13

Dkt. No. 15.) 2 Plaintiff’s filings, liberally construed as amended complaints, fail to cure the

14

defects previously identified by the Court: they do not establish the Court’s subject matter

15

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s asserted claims, do not identify a law entitling Plaintiff to relief or a

16

cognizable legal theory under which he may recover, and do not set forth factual matter that,

17

accepted as true, states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

18

1332; Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664

19

(2009). Therefore, both filings fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 19159(e)(2)(b)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

21

Plaintiff has filed a motion for “Privacy Act [illegible] Personal Space Issues” and

22

accompanying affidavit. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.) Plaintiff’s motion names a variety of entities as

23

Defendants, asserts that “Sins 12-14-14 my personal privacy has been valated in many way’s,”

24
25
26

1

In the section of his motion to extend time in which Plaintiff describes the relief sought,
Plaintiff states, “I get released from prison on 3-23-20 I’m going call Microsoft for documents.”
(Dkt. No. 16 at 2.)
2

Quotes from documents filed by Plaintiff are set forth verbatim.

ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

and sets forth various factual allegations purportedly supporting his assertion. (See Dkt. No. 18

2

at 8–9.) Plaintiff has left the statement of the issue, evidence relied upon, and legal authority

3

sections of his motion blank. (See id. at 10.) Plaintiff’s accompanying affidavit appears to

4

summarize the factual allegations set forth in his motion. (See Dkt. No. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff’s

5

motion does not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his asserted claims, does

6

not identify a law entitling Plaintiff to relief or a cognizable legal theory under which he may

7

recover, and does not set forth factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim for relief that is

8

plausible on its face. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Zixiang, 710 F.3d at 999; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

9

664. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion neither states a claim on which relief can be granted nor cures

10

the deficiencies previously identified by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 19159(e)(2)(b)(ii); Lopez,

11

203 F.3d at 1129.

12

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a stipulation to amendment and accompanying affidavit. (Dkt.

13

Nos. 20, 21.) The stipulation to amendment is not signed by an opposing party. (See Dkt. No. 20

14

at 2.) Plaintiff’s accompanying affidavit sets forth factual allegations which resemble those

15

underlying his other complaints and which do not establish a basis for granting him leave to

16

amend. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 1–2.) Plaintiff has also attached a “motion for complaint of mist use

17

of international telecommunications satallites organization act Aug 16 1985, P.L. 99.93 tittle 1.s

18

146.99 state 425 provides violations privacy act 18 uscs ss 2701 et seq.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s

19

motion does not identify a law entitling Plaintiff to relief or a cognizable legal theory under

20

which he may recover, and does not set forth factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim

21

for relief that is plausible on its face. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Zixiang, 710 F.3d at 999;

22

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion fails to either state a claim on which relief

23

can be granted or cure the deficiencies previously identified by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. §

24

19159(e)(2)(b)(ii); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129.

25
26

In sum, whether the Court construes Plaintiff’s various filings as attempts to cure the
deficiencies previously identified by the Court or as new complaints, none state a claim upon
ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); (Dkt. Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19, 21).

2

Plaintiff has not otherwise demonstrated that he is entitled to additional amendments or an

3

extension of time. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 20.) Therefore, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s

4

complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is

5

DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and to close this case.

6

DATED this 9th day of March 2020.

A

7
8
9

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C20-0152-JCC
PAGE - 4