Chen v. Seattle Office for Civil Rights

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE QIAN CHEN, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-CV-01391-RAJ 9 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEATTLE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Defendant.

Qian Chen, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil complaint purporting to sue the Seattle Office for Civil Rights. Dkt. 7. Because the complaint contains no factual allegations, the Court declined to serve it but granted Mr. Chen leave to file an amended complaint by October 11, 2019. Dkt. 8. The Court cautioned Mr. Chen that if he failed to correct the noted deficiencies in his complaint, this matter was subject to dismissal. Mr. Chen has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.

DISCUSSION “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action … (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). This provision applies to all actions filed in forma pauperis. See Lopez v. 23 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

1 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. Thus, when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).

6 In reviewing the complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Additionally, allegations in pro se complaints are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), and “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

14 Because Mr. Chen included no factual allegations in his complaint, it is impossible for the Court to discern what cause of action he is attempting to assert.1 Although the Clerk has designated this case as one asserting a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), there is nothing in Plaintiff’s filings to indicate that he intended to bring such an action or in fact, any action at all. The Court notes that in a telephone communication with the Clerk of 1 Mr. Chen filed similarly blank IFP applications and complaints in seven other cases. See Cases 2:19-1386-RAJ Chen v. Human Rights Commission; 2:19-cv-01387-RAJ Chen v. Martinez; 2:19-cv-01388-RAJ Chen v. City of Seattle; 2:19-cv-01389-RAJ Chen v. Cantwell; 2:19-cv- 01390 RAJ Chen v. University of Washington; 2:19-cv-01392-RAJ Chen v. Department of Services for the Blind; and 2:19-cv-01424-RAJ Chen v. Commissioner of Social Security.

Reports and Recommendations are pending in six of these cases, recommending denial of Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissal without prejudice. Case No. 19-1389 Chen v. Cantwell was dismissed without prejudice on October 10, 2019 (Dkts. 5, 6).

1 Court on August 30, 2019, Mr. Chen indicated that he meant to name the “Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights” as a defendant. Regardless of which entity is named, the Complaint is subject to dismissal because it contains no factual allegations.

4 Mr. Chen was advised of the deficiencies of his complaint and given additional time to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. 8. He has failed to do so. Because Mr. Chen failed to timely file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order, it is ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice.

8 DATED this 23rd day of October, 2019.

9 A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge