Mikolasy v. Tokio Marine Group/Holdings

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE ALEXANDER RUSSELL MIKOLASY, 10 Plaintitt, Case No, 18-cv-1291-RAJ 1 “ ORDER DISMISSING TOKIO MARINE GROUP, et al., COMPLAINT B Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the Is Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. # 1-1.

16 On August 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Tokio Marine i Group, Delphi Company, and Reliance Standard. Dkt. # 1-1. Plaintiff generally asserts, 18 among other things, that he was subject to illegal human testing and human trafficking and 19 that his rights under HIPPA were violated. Jd. Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt.# 1. On September 6, 2018, the Honorable Brian A.

71 Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt. # 2. = The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff's case if the Court 24 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 |! ORDER - | || F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis || complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis || in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails || to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

5 || Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

6 “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)).

18 Taking all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that || the Complaint fails to state a claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. It is unclear || what claims, if any, Plaintiff asserts against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff does not single || out any entity for any alleged fault or action, and provides no authority for the relief he || seeks. See, e.g., Webb v. Smart Documents Sols, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007) || (statute does not provide a remedy in court for those persons who believe their HIPPA || rights have been violated). Although pro se litigants are given more leeway than licensed || attorneys when assessing their pleadings, they must still adhere to the Federal Rules of || Civil Procedure. Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff || simply does not state a plausible claim for which any type of relief could be granted by this |! ORDER -2 || Court against either of these two Defendants.

2 As a result, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. Within fourteen (14) || 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 provide a basis for || jurisdiction and state a cognizable claim for relief, or is otherwise untenable under § || 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action.

9 DATED this ye day of October, 2019.

10 yy 13 The Honorable Richard AWWones United States District Court Judge |! ORDER - 3