Wright v. Grisham

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Case No. C21-5327RSM Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. KIM GRISHAM, 14 Defendant.

Pro se Plaintiff Stephen Christopher Wright has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #6. The Complaint was posted on the docket on May 17, 2021.

Dkt. #7. Summons has not yet been issued.

19 Plaintiff, a Washington State resident, brings this action against Kim Grisham, “a resident of Hot Springs, Arkansas.” Dkt. #7 at 1. Mr. Wright alleges that Ms. Grisham “falsely entered into the Arkansas Office of Child Support system information regarding a non-existent court order for Plaintiff to pay monies…” Id. There are no further details in the Complaint about Ms. Grisham. Mr. Wright provides no details as to Ms. Grisham’s actions or her association with any government entities. There is no allegation that Ms. Grisham had any contacts with the State of Washington.

The Complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. #1-2 (civil cover sheet); Dkt.

2 #7 (citing 42 U.S.C. §1983).

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that the Court must dismiss an action if it determines, at any time, that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This issue can be raised sua sponte. Furthermore, the Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

9 The Complaint appears to relate to an enforcement of a child support action, which is outside of federal subject matter jurisdiction both because family law matters are handled by the states and because federal court review of state court decisions is barred under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”)

The Complaint fails to allege any basis for this Court to have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Grisham. If Ms. Grisham is an employee of the State of Arkansas, the Complaint fails to establish why she is not immune from suit. In addition to all of this, Plaintiff does not support his claims with sufficient facts to establish a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment or any other source of law.

Considering all of the above, the Court believes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and that this case is otherwise frivolous. Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the Court (1) the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and why this case is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, (2) the basis for personal jurisdiction over this Defendant, (3) why this Defendant is not immune from suit, and (4) why this case should not otherwise be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six double-spaced (6) pages.

Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional pages as attachments. The Court will take no further action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response.

9 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file this Response will result in dismissal of this case.

13 The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 1161 Bogachiel Way, Forks, WA 98331.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2021.

19 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE