Chow v. United States Attorney General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JENNY Y. CHOW AND PETER S. CHOW, Case No. 2:19-CV-607-RSL Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s “Order Requiring More Definite Statement.” Dkt. #11. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on July 30, 2019. Dkt. #12.

18 Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May 23, 2019. Dkt. #8.

19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A case is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted if it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Lewis v. City of Auburn, No. C17-1916-JLR-JPD, 2018 WL 2091416, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. C17-1916-JLR, 2018 WL 2089360 (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009)).

The Amended Complaint does not cure the defects identified in the Court’s previous The Court concludes that plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief. 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint WITH PREJUDICE. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).

DATED this 4th day of September, 2019.

A Robert S. Lasnik 7 United States District Judge