Brown v. United States Department of Education

Filing 9

ORDER: The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10

ELIZABETH BROWN,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

15
16

Case No. 2:21-cv-00326-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Dkt. ##1, 4. For the reasons

17

below, the Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Elizabeth Brown’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint

18

with leave to amend.

19

On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the United States

20

Department of Education. Dkt. # 1-1. She also filed an application to proceed in forma

21

pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Michelle L. Peterson granted Plaintiff’s application.

22

Dkt. # 3.

23

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

24

§ 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to

25

certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these

26

requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines

27

that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: “the court shall

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by
prisoners”).
“The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL
1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule
12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule
requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all
reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903,
910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).
Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff’s complaint
liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that her due process rights have been violated.
Dkt. # 1-1 at 3. She states her claim as follows:
Dept. of Education case # 160303001821 (2016). Advised by the police, in
Concord, Ma that this is a federal matter; my daughter’s forgery, loss of
scholarship money, and my 93 year old grandfather having to pay more resulting
in numerous family division.
Dkt. # 1-1 at 5. Plaintiff seeks relief in the amount of $23,000,000. Id. She describes
the relief she seeks as “[m]e, my father, mother and my 93 year old grandfather aren’t
invited to my daughter’s, 23 year old, Jennifer Brown’s wedding, but my ½ sister is and 2
cousins. Lost concept of right from wrong to establish justice.” Id.
ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff does not allege any facts supporting a claim for a violation of due process
rights or any other rights. The Court is unable to discern any claim of wrongdoing
against Defendant United States Department of Education. Plaintiff cites to what appears
to be an administrative case but fails to provide any facts about the case or explanation of
its relevance to her claim before the Court. Absent any factual allegations, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 550 U.S.
at 568. The Court must dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff, however, may amend the complaint. “Unless it is absolutely clear that
no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”
Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The Court
therefore grants Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file an amended complaint that states a
valid claim for relief. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order by filing an
amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this
action without leave to amend.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint.
Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file
an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint
that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e),
the Court will dismiss the action.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2021.

A

23
24

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3