Kayona Crenshaw v. Department of Children Youth and Families et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA KAYONA CRENSHAW, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-06159-DGE Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DKT.

NO. 6) 13 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH 4 AND FAMILIES et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff is bringing a suit in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to § 1915(a); accordingly, the Court must do a mandatory and sua sponte review and will dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a clam. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1) 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). Plaintiff is also proceeding pro se. While a pro se plaintiff's complaint must be construed liberally, it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief.

2 || Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

3 Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be related to a child custody or child welfare case.

4 || Plaintiff alleges “[u]nfair legal proceedings” that, among other things, caused “parental || kidnapping,” abuse of children, and incorrect reporting of child support obligations. (Dkt. No. 6 6 4-5.) At this point, it is unclear who Plaintiff is intending to sue and on what basis. At || various points, Plaintiff lists “Children Youth and Families,” “DCYF,” “Department of Assigned || Councel,” “Judge Sabrina Ahrens,” and “Sabrin Ahrens” as possible defendants. (/d. at 1—2, 4.).

9 || Plaintiff also identifies an apparent individual—Ahrens—as a corporation and indicates Ahrens || may be “incorporated under the laws of the State of DCYF children youth and families” or the || “laws of Israle.” (Ud. at 4) (cleaned up).

12 While pro se plaintiff's complaints will be construed liberally, here it is impossible for || the Court to determine on what grounds Plaintiff is basing each claim against each defendant.

14 || See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff must plead that each || Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the || Constitution.”) (identifying the standard a plaintiff must meet to survive initial review ona || constitutional claim).

18 Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff makes a coherent claim, Judge Ahrens is protected by || judicial immunity. “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action [s]he took was |} in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, [s]he will be subject to || liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.”” Stump v. Sparkman, ||435 US. 349, 356-357 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (1872).

1 Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. || § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Ahrens are DISMISSED with prejudice.

3 || Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against the other named Defendants no later than || February 12, 2026 addressing the deficiencies noted in this order. Failure to address the || deficiencies noted in this order will lead to dismissal without prejudice.

7 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2026.

DavidG.Estudillo 10 United States District Judge