District Court, W.D. Washington, 2024

Jackson v. Federal Way Police Department

Jackson v. Federal Way Police Department
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided January 25, 2024
Jackson v. Federal Way Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LAURA LEAH JACKSON, CASE NO. C24-0095-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. FEDERAL WAY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 25, 2024, the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, U.S. Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s application. (Dkt. No. 4.) A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court “at any time” to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” However, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Sufficient factual allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

3 Even in applying the Ninth Circuit’s directive to construe pro se complaints liberally, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Not only does Plaintiff’s complaint fail to comply with Rule 8, but it also fails to contain a “short” or “plain statement” of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

8 For these reasons, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

11 DATED this 25th day of January 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.