Raikoglo v. United States of America et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within 30 days of this Order. Therefore, any amended complaint is due by 10/16/2024. Plaintiff's 6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel is DISMISSED as moot. The Court DIRECTS the clerk of the court to unseal this case. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

LANCE RAIKOGLO,
v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05505-TL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This case arises from Plaintiff Lance Raikoglo’s claims regarding his deceased aunt’s
estate and an allegedly related automobile accident. This matter is before the Court on its own
motion. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 5), the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and therefore DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint.
On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in
this action. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s application for IFP status was granted, but U.S. Magistrate

24
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1

Judge David W. Christel recommended review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt. No. 4.

2

Plaintiff’s Complaint was subsequently filed on the docket. Dkt. No. 5.

3

The Court’s authority to grant IFP status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Per the statute,

4

the Court must dismiss a case if the IFP Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

5

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th

6

Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by

7

prisoners”). “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28

8

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014)

10

(citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to assume the truth of factual

11

allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown,

12

504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must provide sufficient factual details in the

13

complaint to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

14

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se (without an attorney), courts must

15

construe the complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir.

16

2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). However, a court “should not

17

supply essential elements of the [pro se] claim that were not initially pled.” E.g., Henderson v.

18

Anderson, 2019 WL 3996859, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2019) (internal citation and quotation

19

omitted); see also Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., 409 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1031 (W.D. Wash. 2019)

20

(“[C]ourts should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants.” (quoting Noll v. Carlson,

21

809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))).

22

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks sufficient factual detail to plausibly state a claim.

23

Plaintiff specifically asserts federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows

24

claims alleging the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 2

1

Constitution and [federal laws].” Plaintiff claims, without providing any supporting details, that

2

he has been deprived of his property without due process of law by the “[U.S.] Government

3

violating 18 U.S.[C.] § 641, 42 U.S.[C.] § 1983, and Acts against the Estate of Janice Walker

4

and upon . . . [Plaintiff] and [his] deceased aunt’s estate.” Dkt. No. 5 at 5. However, Plaintiff

5

does not provide factual details as to whether he is an heir to the estate, what amount of money

6

he asserts he was entitled to as an heir to the estate, or when he believes that he should have

7

received that money. See generally Dkt. No. 5. Further, Plaintiff does not allege any factual

8

details as to the alleged “RICO style act” he asserts was made upon the deceased’s estate or how

9

that act harmed him specifically. See generally id. Without additional factual details, Plaintiff’s

10
11

conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim for relief.
To state a plausible claim for relief in federal court, a Plaintiff must “plead[] factual

12

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

13

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009). Thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals of

14

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient. Id.

15

Here, all Plaintiff offers are conclusory statements to support threadbare, and substantively

16

incomplete, recitals of some elements of her claims. The Court, therefore, FINDS that Plaintiff

17

fails to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For this reason, the Court must

18

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

19

Courts typically allow pro se plaintiffs to amend their complaints in lieu of dismissal.

20

Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court will therefore GRANT Plaintiff

21

leave to file an amended complaint in this case that sufficiently “pleads factual content,” Iqbal,

22

556 U.S. at 672, to state a plausible claim for relief. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint

23

by the deadline or if the amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, the Court

24

will dismiss this case in its entirety.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 3

1

Finally, this case was sealed because Plaintiff checked the box on the civil cover sheet

2

characterizing his suit as a false claims and qui tam action. Dkt. No. 1-2. “The False Claims Act

3

enables a private individual to sue a firm which presents a fraudulent claim to the

4

government”—this is referred to as a “qui tam action.” U.S. ex rel. Anderson v. Northern

5

Telecom, Inc., 52 F.3d 810, 812–13 (9th Cir. 1995). “The action is brought in the name of the

6

government, and is served on the government.” Id. at 813. “[T]he paradigm qui tam case is one

7

in which an insider at a company brings an action against his own employer.” U.S. ex rel. Fine v.

8

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 72 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 1995). Qui tam actions remain under seal for at

9

least the first 60 days after filing. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). However, this case is not brought for

10

the United States government but against the United States government. As this case is not a qui

11

tam case, it should not be filed under seal.

12

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

13

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff

14

leave to amend his complaint within 30 days of this Order. Therefore, any

15

amended complaint is due by October 16, 2024.

16
17
18
19

2. Mr. Raikoglo’s pending Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 6) is DISMISSED as
moot.
3. The Court DIRECTS the clerk of the court to unseal this case.
Dated this 16th day of September 2024.

20
21

Tana Lin
United States District Judge

22
23
24
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 4