Arden v. City of Long Beach

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA CANDACE MARIE ARDEN, CASE NO. C23-5195-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on pre-service review of Plaintiff Candace Marie Arden’s amended in forma pauperis (“IFP”) complaint (Dkt. No. 14). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court must review and dismiss before service the lawsuit of any person proceeding IFP if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff previously submitted an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11), which the Court dismissed because Plaintiff did not state any specific legal claims upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 13.) However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. (Id. at 2.)

24 To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (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). That being said, the Court holds pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers and liberally construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 4 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).

5 Plaintiff’s new complaint again fails to state any specific legal claims upon which relief can be granted. (See generally Dkt. No. 14.) Instead, it contains a list of Defendants followed by a series of supporting documents provided with no context. (Id.) Because the amended complaint fails to state any plausible claims, the Court DISMISSES it without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED, as Plaintiff has already submitted an amended complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case and send a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

12 DATED this 18th day of July 2023.

A John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE