Jones v. General Services Administration

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. C23-1148-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 13 Defendant.

15 Pro se Plaintiff, Cortez Daundre Jones, filed a complaint against the General Administration Services alleging “290 stolen property from GSA offices not willing to pay me or give me my property (discrimination)” and seeking $20 trillion in damages. (Dkt. No. 1-1.)

18 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must dismiss IFP complaints if “at any time” it is determined the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also id. § 1915A(b)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (Section 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners).

22 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and DISMISSES it for two reasons. First, Plaintiff indicates the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction as both diversity and federal question, but fails to identify the parties’ citizenship or list any specific federal laws that are at issue in this case. Second, the complaint includes no factual allegations, other than a few overly vague handwritten statements (“290 stolen property from GSA offices not willing to pay me or give me my property (discrimination)”). (Dkt. No. 1-1.) These allegations do not set forth sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 664 (2009). Labels and conclusions, lacking factual enhancement are insufficient. Id. 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).

6 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

8 DATED this 1st day of September 2023.

A John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE