Beauregard et al v. State of Washington et al

Filing 5

COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL for filing a frivolous lawsuit. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 11/8/2012 (DN). (cc to pltf Susan Beauregard)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

ORDER

10
11
12
13

No. 12-cv-5945-RBL

EUGENE BEAUREGARD, and SUSAN
BEAUREGARD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiffs, already under a vexatious litigant order (See Beauregard v. Lewis Cnty., No.

16

11-cv-638-RBL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2011) (Dkt. #44)), have filed yet another frivolous

17

lawsuit regarding their property in their ongoing property dispute with their neighbors. The

18

lawsuits—this being the sixth—all pertain in one way or another to easements across the

19

Beauregards’ property. (See Beauregard v. Hillock, No. 07-cv-712-FDB (W.D. Wash. 2007);

20

Beauregard v. Lewis Cnty., No. 05-cv-5738-RJB (W.D. Wash. 2006); Beauregard v. Hillock,

21

No. 09-cv-1614-RJB (W.D. Wash. 2009); Beauregard v. Lewis Cnty., No. 11-cv-638-RBL

22

(W.D. Wash. 2011); Beauregard v. VanderStoep, Remund Blinks & Jones, No. 12-cv-5210-RJB

23

(W.D. Wash. 2012)). The action is dismissed sua sponte because the Complaint fails to state a

24

claim on which relief may be granted.

25
26

I.

BACKGROUND

The Complaint is rife with legal conclusions but provides few factual allegations. (See,

27

e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3.5–3.20.) Plaintiffs appear upset with an easement granted by order of the

28

Lewis County Superior Court (case no. 03-2-00924-3) in 2004. The easement allows the

Order - 1

1

Hillocks, the Beauregards’ neighbors, to continue using their residential water system, which

2

uses what the Beauregards call a “spring box,” a concrete box that accumulates water for

3

residential use. (See Compl. ¶ 4.40.) The spring box in question was completed in 1942. (Id.

4

¶ 4.47.) The Beauregards allege that “the State of Washington’s Superior Court . . . compels the

5

Beauregards’ participation in point source water pollution on Beauregards’ property, without

6

supervision of federal water pollution regulation.” (Id. ¶ 4.50.) The Complaint is hazy on the

7

source of “pollution” and on the connection to federal environmental laws.
The Complaint then turns to a confusing set of non-sequitur claims. Plaintiffs allege that

8
9

“the Superior Court of the State of Washington does not have original jurisdiction in the

10

determination of water rights under Washington law or federal law.” (Id. ¶ 4.60.) Plaintiffs fault

11

the Superior Court for not making “any reference to or holding based upon any deference due to

12

the unambiguous statements of Congress in the CWA.” (Id. ¶ 4.62.)1 The Superior Court’s

13

order allegedly “conflict[s] with the unambiguously stated congressional design that requires the

14

State of Washington executive’s [sic] participation in a national goal of eliminating the discharge

15

of pollutants . . . .” (Id. ¶ 4.63.) Plaintiffs fault the State for failing to investigate his claims of

16

pollution arising from spring boxes. (Id. ¶ 4.84.) The Complaint states that Plaintiffs cannot

17

“intentionally create and transfer a title to their property” without exposing themselves to “severe

18

civil and criminal penalties.” (Id. ¶ 4.105.)
Plaintiffs allege that Attorney General Rob McKenna failed to investigate his allegation

19
20

that his neighbor’s spring box is polluting “the waters and vernal pools of the United States

21

navigable waters within the Chehalis River watershed.” (Id. ¶ 4.113.) Mr. Beauregard also

22

states that he informed the Attorney General that he fears “injury by targeted selective non-

23

enforcement of the laws” because he is African-American. (Id. ¶4.134.)
II.

24

DISCUSSION

25

A. Legal Standard

26

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal

27

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

28
1

The Court does not understand this sentence any better than the reader.

Order - 2

1

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint must allege facts to state

2

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

3

(2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content

4

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

5

misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true a complaint’s well-pled facts,

6

conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper

7

Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v.

8

Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide

9

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

10

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be

11

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

12

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnote omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more

13

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949

14

(citing Twombly ).

15

Because Plaintiffs filed pro se, the Court construes the pleadings liberally and has

16

afforded Plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839

17

F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can

18

cure the defect, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an

19

opportunity to amend). A federal court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte pursuant to Federal

20

Rule 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be

21

granted. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may

22

dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such a dismissal may be made

23

without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”); see also Mallard v. United

24

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have

25

the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an express statutory

26

provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v.

27

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

28

Order - 3

1

Here, it is clear that this suit is merely the extension of the Plaintiffs’ almost decade-long

2

battle with their neighbors. What they seek is simply the review and reversal of a superior court

3

order, which this Court will not do. Plaintiffs have already been labeled “vexatious” and are

4

barred from suing their neighbors or Lewis County. They now seek to harass the State via

5

federal law. Unfortunately for them, the Complaint lacks both factual allegations and legal bases

6

sufficient to survive dismissal. Because amendment would be futile, the Court grants dismissal

7

with prejudice.
III.

8
9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES this action with PREJUDICE.

10

Further, the Court hereby WARNS Plaintiffs that further frivolous suits will be subject to

11

sanctions under Federal Rule 11, which bars any filing that “it is not being presented for any

12

improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

13

litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). All claims must be “warranted by existing law or by a

14

nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing

15

new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). This means that further filings of frivolous lawsuits may

16

result in sanctions, including monetary penalties. The Court strongly recommends that Plaintiffs

17

retain counsel for any future legal endeavors in order to avoid sanctions for improper abuse of

18

the courts.

19
20
21
22
23

Dated this 8th day of November 2012.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

Order - 4