Churchill v. Harrell

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE PANO CHURCHILL, CASE NO. C23-1029-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. BRUCE HARRELL, et al., 13 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte pre-service section 1915(e)(2)(B) review of Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 6). The Court provided Plaintiff with 14 days to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint. (Id. at 2.) That time-period has now lapsed with the Plaintiff failing to file an amended complaint or to respond to the Court’s order at all. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) with prejudice and without leave to amend1 for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

23 // // When doing so would be futile, leave to amend need not be provided. Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018).

1 DATED this 4th day of August 2023.

A John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE