United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRATING MOTION TO DISMISS
B. Leighton United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the City of Elma's Motion
to Dismiss [Dkt. #24] and pro se Plaintiff
Hartford's responsive Motion for Extension and for Oral
Argument. [Dkt. #27]. Hartford repeatedly attempted to obtain
in forma pauperis status, and each was rejected
[Dkt. #s 6, 8, and 10]. He ultimately paid the filing fee
rather than seek in forma pauperis status based on his most
recent amended complaint. As the Court explained in each of
its Orders, Hartford was unable to articulate a plausible,
viable claim against any defendant-it remains unusually
difficult to understand what he is complaining about.
the gist of the City's Motion. It argues that none of
Hartford's various complaints (the City counts seven
total; the most recent appears to be Dkt. #23) articulates
any facts or claims against the City. Instead, they focus on
the alleged misdeeds of Hartford's prior attorney. The
City argues that most of the amended complaints are improper,
having been filed after it Answered, but that none
articulates a plausible claim against it or its employees or
agents in any event. It seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P
12(b)(6) or 12(c).
has filed a series of responses [Dkt. #s 26, 27 and 29] but
none of them resolve the issues with his pleadings, or his
claims. He has not articulated any plausible set of facts
that support any viable claim against the City. The following
passage is typical of his filings, and it is not enough to
meet the Iqbal standard applicable to claims in this
6. Plaintiff argues that of Defendants opinion that certain
processes save defense costs and court time more as oppose to
7. Argument That the plaintiffs claims are wholly barred by
all applicable statutes of Limitation criterion.
8. Plaintiff opposes Defendants opinion That Hartford foils
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
9. Plaintiff opposes the opinions of the defendant, in
regards to inculpatory evidence of which The Justice
of The Peoples court ruled to be "...reasonable
inferences in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff*;
Defendant agreed that claims, "HOWEVER TRUE" vs.
Exculpatory evidence; which Darrell Cochrane not try.
10 Plaintiff opposes Defendants opinion that his losses are
11. Plaintiff Opposes Defendants argument that Justice has no
VI. 1 Compensation for psychological torment caused by City
of Elma, et al adjoined with Darrell Cochrane, Et al.
Argument: Emotional aggravation via the Dereliction of
responsibility, for inadequate representation, the lack of
communication on Mr. Darrell Cochran's part, other than
to inform Mr. Ira Hartford to stop calling or Mr. Cochran
would request the judge to allow the firm to withdraw. In
addition, the failure to acquire disclosures at Mr.
Hartford's request providing insight as to what the
opposition is up to.
[Dkt. #27] As the City claims, he has not responded to the
Motion in a manner that is coherent, and he has not met his
burden on this motion. He has not stated plausible a claim.
under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a
cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1990). A plaintiffs complaint must allege facts to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See
Aschcroft v. Iqbal,129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim
has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking
relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the
Court must accept as true the Complaint's well-pled
facts, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
inferences will not defeat a Rule 12(c) motion. Vazquez
v. L. A. County,487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007);
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide
the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement] 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 ...