Johnson v. CDC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, Cause No. C21-0572RSL Plaintiff, v. ORDER REQUIRING A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT CDC COVID 19 CRIMES, et al., Defendants.

On May 21, 2021, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and his complaint was accepted for filing. The complaint contains little more than lists of individuals/entities, some of whom are associated with a description (e.g., “Head Religious Ethics Committee”), a conclusory accusation (e.g., “Crimes of Treason Daily”), and/or a phone number. There is no indication what any of the identified persons or entities did to plaintiff. It is also unclear what relief plaintiff seeks.1 21 1 The relief requested section of the form complaint states the following: Arrest Detain Prisoner + property 23 Seizure United States is Behind Over 12 yrs. Foreign Policy Guidelines 24 All Government. Feds, State, Politicians, Judges etc. See Angela Byers 26 FBI 513-421-4310 And United Nations ORDER REQUIRING A MORE 1 The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), finds that plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint will be dismissed unless it states a cognizable legal theory that is supported by sufficient facts to state a “plausible” ground for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). All well-pleaded allegations are presumed to be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non- moving party. In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2013).

Although a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, it must give rise to something more than mere speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 15 555. The individuals and entities identified by plaintiff would have to guess what acts they are supposed to have committed and how those acts relate to, much less establish, a claim against them. At a bare minimum, Rule 8(a) mandates that plaintiff “give the defendant fair notice of Honor Motion’s First Stay Away Order Job’s Doctor’s 20 Family + Friends No contact Relocation Family. (seeking 1 Billion Dollars.)

21 Honor Crime Victim’s Compensation Follow United Nations Ethics Guidances Obstruction Justice 23 Covering up Federal Crimes 24 See Cochran Law Firm 1-800-843-3476 Additional Damages Dkt. # 7 at 3.

ORDER REQUIRING A MORE what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The complaint fails to serve this vital purpose.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to issue a summons in this matter.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before June 21, 2021, an amended complaint which clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which each named defendant is accused and how those acts violated plaintiff’s legal rights. The key to filing an acceptable amended complaint will be providing enough facts that each defendant has sufficient notice to mount a defense and from which one could plausibly infer that plaintiff has a viable legal claim and a right to relief against each defendant. The amended complaint will replace the existing complaint in its entirety. Failure to timely file an amended complaint that asserts a plausible claim for relief will result in dismissal of this action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on the Court’s calendar for consideration on Friday, June 25, 2021.

20 Dated this 24th day of May, 2021.

Robert S. Lasnik 22 United States District Judge ORDER REQUIRING A MORE