Crary v. Queen Elizabeth

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE JAMES MACRYLAND CRARY, Case No. 3:22-cv-05408-RAJ Plaintiff, v. ORDER 15 QUEEN ELIZABETH, RINGO STARR, ROBERT FRIPP, AND YOKO ONO, 18 Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff James Macryland Crary (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. Dkt. ## 1, 1-1. On June 10, 2022, the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis while recommending review under 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuance of summons. Dkt 4. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court DISMISSES the action.

1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff’s case if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: “the 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 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 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”).

13 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 14 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 16 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).

22 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)).

25 Here, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit against Queen Elizabeth, Ringo Starr, Robert Fripp, and Yoko Ono. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2-3. However, in his statement of the claim, he does not identify any actions taken by any of the named defendants. Id. at 5. He merely states that “[t]he assassins are criminally insane. They took me to deranged serial mayhem.” Id. at 5. He further alleges that he is a “victim of a deranged [] revenge act from WW2.” Id. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 568. These conclusory assertions do not support a cause of action against any named defendants.

6 In the absence of any factual allegations supporting any discernable cause of action on which relief may be granted, the Court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may, however, amend the complaint within 21 days of the Order. “Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”

12 Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order by filing an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted above, the Court will dismiss this action without leave to amend.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2022.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge