Spruel v. Seattle Central College

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MICHELLE SPRUEL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02100-JHC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 SEATTLE CENTRAL COLLEGE, 12 Defendant.

I 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court has reviewed self-represented Plaintiff Michelle Spruel’s second Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 15, and the record. For the reasons below, the Court DISMISSES this matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Also, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to seal at Dkt.

20 # 14.

21 / / / / 1 II DISCUSSION On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed this case. Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Dkt. # 5. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed her complaint. Dkt. # 6. The same day, she filed her Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 9.

When reviewing an IFP complaint, dismissal is warranted if the Court determines that it: “(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)(i)–(iii); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

On December 26, 2024, under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Dkt. # 12 at 3. The Court granted leave to amend. Id. On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed the second Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 15. This pleading cites 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 (definition of disability). Id. at 3. But even liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), it fails to state a claim under any federal or state law. It merely alleges, The Seattle Central Community College refused to provide my official transcripts.

18 I tried paying for my transcripts and Seattle Central College denied my request due to owing fines denying me access into college.

Id. at 6.1 The Court can hardly infer a plausible claim for relief from these allegations.

1 Also, the Court’s prior order limited leave to amend the complaint to the claims dismissed there.

Dkt. # 12 at 3. The second Amended Complaint does not appear to follow this limitation.

1 III CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court concludes that the second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court DISMISSES this matter without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Dkt. # 14. Plaintiff requests a full sealing of her second Amended Complaint. Upon review, the Court finds that the confidential information contained therein could be easily redacted.

Dated this 4th day of February, 2025. a John H. Chun 12 United States District Judge