Jones v. Campbell

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. C23-1230-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 v. FRANK CAMPBELL, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff, Cortez Daundre Jones, filed a complaint against Frank Campbell, Valentine Campbell, Cyrus Campbell, and Anna C. Kennedy. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) The complaint contains no allegations nor requests for relief. Id. 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 fails to indicate the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Second, the complaint includes no factual allegations, claims, or requests for relief. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) An empty complaint clearly does not set forth sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

26 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Instead, 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).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. This dismissal renders consideration of IFP status moot.

6 DATED this 1st day of September 2023.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE