Elliott v. Thurston County Jail

1 HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA BRYANT RAOUL ELLIOTT, CASE NO. 25-5291-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 THURSTON COUNTY JAIL, 12 Defendant.

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court following Magistrate Judge Grady Leupold’s Order granting pro se plaintiff Elliott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, based on his indigency, leaving to this Court evaluation of whether Elliott’s proposed complaint, Dkt. 1-1, asserts a plausible claim and should be served.

18 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

1 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 4 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly at 555).

12 In order to state a plausible claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

15 Elliott has not articulated sufficient facts stating a plausible claim. It is not enough to simply assert Thurston County Jail violated his 14th amendment rights by holding him in maximum security for “over 6 months.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5.

18 Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”).

22 Elliott may file an amended complaint within 21 days of this Order, or the case will be dismissed. Any amended complaint should focus on the “who, what, when, where, and why” of a factual story. Acres of adjectives, legal citations, and conclusory statements are not required and are not enough to state a viable claim. His amended complaint should plausibly articulate why that conduct is actionable in this Court. His current proposed complaint does not state a plausible claim.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated this 27th day of August, 2025.

A 9 BBEENNJJAAMMIINN HH.. SSEETTTTLLEE UUnn iitteedd SSttaatteess DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee