Marcos-Chavela v. Social Security

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE SUSAN MARCOS-CHAVELA, CASE NO. C23-0875-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. SOCIAL SECURITY, et al., Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court upon pre-service review of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) complaint (Dkt. No. 5). The Court previously noted the complaint is mostly illegible and it ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint within 14 days, clearly stating her claims for relief. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff failed to do so. The Court must dismiss a complaint prior to service if it “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face to avoid dismissal. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, (2009). The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Here, Plaintiff fails to state any specific legal claims upon which relief can be granted.

2 (See Dkt. No. 6.) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) without prejudice.

4 DATED this 18th day of July 2023.

A John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE