Jones v. Environmental Protection Agency

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-1189-RAJ 1 “ ORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 13 Defendant.

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on the objections to the Report and Recommendation || dated August 21, 2023. Dkt. # 9. For the reasons below, the Court finds that the Complaint || does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and DISMISSES the Complaint.

19 Il. BACKGROUND 20 From what the Court can ascertain, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against the || EPA. Dkt. # 1-1. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge || Tsuchida, in reviewing the complaint, recommended the assigned District Judge screen || this matter to determine whether the Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be || granted. Dkt. # 8 at 3.

25 Ill. DISCUSSION 26 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. || § 1915. Upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is subject to |! ORDER -1 || certain requirements set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among these || requirements is the Court’s duty to dismiss the plaintiff's case if the Court determines || that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: “the court shall || dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action . . . (i) is frivolous || or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks || monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. || § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) || ([S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by || prisoners.”).

10 “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 || U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal || Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 13 || 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule || 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule || requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and credit all || reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, || 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to || relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

19 || Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiffs complaint || liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing || Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).

22 Here, the complaint states “EPA cannot sign for anyone else [sic] property to || claim.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5. The remaining allegations that the EPA “did not get in contact” || with the Plaintiff, and “fining multiple businesses in [his] name” do not set forth || sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. || lgbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Labels and conclusions, lacking factual enhancement || are insufficient. /d. The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief || ORDER-2 || above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. That standard has not been met.

2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. This || dismissal renders consideration of IFP status moot. The Clerk is directed to close this || case.

6 DATED this GY ay of September, 2023. {i 10 The Honorable Richar ones United States District Court Judge |! ORDER - 3