Angela Moore v. Tacoma Pierce County Health Department, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ANGELA MOORE, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05921-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. TACOMA PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court following Magistrate Judge Theresa Fricke’s Order granting pro se plaintiff Angela Moore leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2.

Moore’s first proposed complaint, Dkt. 3, did not state a plausible claim, and the Court allowed Moore to amend. Dkt. 5. Moore subsequently filed an amended complaint. Dkt.

7.

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. § 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).

4 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 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 10 678. “[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).

14 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).

16 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.”

18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

19 Moore’s amended complaint does not state a plausible claim. She alleges her former employer, Tacoma Pierce County Health Department, denied her “access to internal systems” while she was on medical leave and did not respond to her repeated requests for “clarification regarding leave status, pay, employment status, and accommodation.” Dkt. 7 at 3. She alleges she “has not received a regular paycheck since approximately July 19, 2025,” although her position was terminated in December. Id. at 4. She claims the program she “launched and led remained funded,” despite the Department terminating her for “budgetary reasons.” Id. at 5. She brings Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and retaliation claims against the Department.

7 Moore’s amended complaint does not articulate sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. Her allegations are wholly conclusory and do not allow the Court to infer how the Department’s conduct violated her federal rights. Her amended complaint does not meet the pleading standard under Iqbal and Twombly.

11 The Court already permitted Moore to amend her complaint. She does not articulate sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated this 21st day of January, 2026.

A BBEENNJJAAMMIINN HH.. SSEETTTTLLEE 18 UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee