Adamovich v. North Tacoma Montessori School

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA IGOR ALEKSANDROVICH CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05615-DGE 11 ADAMOVICH, ORDER DISMISSING 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. NORTH TACOMA MONTESSORI 14 SCHOOL, 15 Defendant.

17 This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).

18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), has submitted a complaint against North Tacoma Montessori School. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he wants a “proper hiring process,” and Defendant “refused [him] a job because they stated that [he] need[ed] a degree in order to work” with children, even though he is the father of a 13-year-old child. (Id. at 5.)

23 Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc ). “The standard for determining whether [a] Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915 “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

11 As currently formulated, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

13 Plaintiff does not identify any federal statutes, treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution that would allow this Court to have federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not state any causes of action against Defendant, or details that would support the causes of action.

16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) but provides Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies noted in this opinion. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than October 9, 2025.

21 The Clerk shall calendar this event.

1 Dated this 9th day of September, 2025.

A David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge