Severson v. Shein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALONZO JAMICHAEL SEVERSON, CASE NO. C25-1264-KKE Plaintiff(s), ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHEIN, et al., Defendant(s).

The Court previously explained that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) fails to allege sufficient facts to “raise [his] right to relief above the speculative level,” as required under the federal pleading standard. Dkt. No. 7 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In particular, while Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendants “used stolen intellectual property” (Dkt. No. 5 at 4), it fails to identify what intellectual property was allegedly stolen, that he owns or has rights to the stolen intellectual property, or how that property is currently being used by Defendants. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. The Court warned Plaintiff that unless he filed an amended complaint by September 17, 2025, adequately addressing the issues identified in the Court’s order, the Court may dismiss this case. Id. at 3. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

1 Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order and has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice.

4 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 7 United S tates District Judge