United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
L. ROBART United States District Judge
the court are pro se Plaintiff Annette
Blanchard's complaint (Compl. (Dkt. # 5)) and Magistrate
Judge Mary Alice Theiler's order granting Ms. Blanchard
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and
recommending that the court review her complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (IFP Order (Dkt. # 4)). Ms.
Blanchard has previously filed a nearly identical suit in
this court, which the court dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Blanchard v. N.
Cascade Tr. Servs., Inc., No. C16-1544JLR (W.D. Wash.),
Dkt. ## 22-23. Because this action suffers the same
jurisdictional shortcomings as that case, the court DIRECTS
the Clerk to refrain from issuing summonses, DISMISSES Ms.
Blanchard's complaint (Dkt. # 5) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and GRANTS Ms. Blanchard leave to amend
her complaint no later than August 17, 2017.
case and the prior case, Ms. Blanchard sued Defendant North
Cascade Trustee Services (“NCTS”). See
Blanchard, No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. # 21 at 1-2. Like Ms.
Blanchard, NCTS is a Washington domiciliary and therefore
destroys complete diversity. See id., Dkt. # 22 at
2. In any case, Ms. Blanchard does not invoke diversity
jurisdiction in this case. (See Compl. at 4
(indicating only federal question jurisdiction as the basis
of the court's subject matter jurisdiction).)
prior suit, Ms. Blanchard also asserted federal question
jurisdiction, but she cited two statutes-28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1449-that do not confer substantive
rights and did not relate to her claims. Blanchard,
No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. # 22 at 2 (citing Blanchard,
No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. # 21 at 3). Ms. Blanchard also invoked
in passing her “right to due process and constitutional
rights, ” id., Dkt. # 21 at 5 (capitalization
altered), but her causes of action-fraud, negligence,
malfeasance, and misrepresentation-were grounded in state
law, id., Dkt. # 22 at 2. Accordingly, the court
concluded that Ms. Blanchard “assert[ed] only state law
claims and fail[ed] to allege facts to support federal
question jurisdiction.” Id. at 3. The court
dismissed the previous action without prejudice on February
16, 2017. Id.
compared to her complaints in the previous action, Ms.
Blanchard's complaint in this case is identical in all
manners relevant to federal question jurisdiction.
(Compare Compl. at 4, 6), with Blanchard,
No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. ## 6 at 6, 21 at 4, 6. Here, Ms.
Blanchard asserts that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-46 and
Article III of the United States Constitution serve as the
basis for federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. at 4.) Like
in her original case, neither the cited statutory provisions
nor Article III “confer substantive rights or relate to
this case.” See Blanchard, No. C16-1544JLR,
Dkt. # 22 at 2. Here, like in her original case, Ms.
Blanchard invokes in passing her due process and other
constitutional rights. (Compl. at 6); see Blanchard,
No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. # 21 at 6. But like in her original
case, see Blanchard, No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. # 22 at
2, the only claims Ms. Blanchard asserts proceed under state
law and seek to quiet title to her property, enjoin an
impending foreclosure sale, and obtain monetary damages
(Compl. at 6). The court therefore concludes that the
complaint fails to allege facts that support federal question
of the lack of complete diversity and the absence of a
federal question, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. The court therefore dismisses Ms.
Blanchard's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). See Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No.
15-cv-03456-JSC, 2015 WL 5360294, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
14, 2015) (dismissing pursuant to Section 1915(e) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction).
this action and Case No. C15-1544JLR, Ms. Blanchard has twice
failed to allege facts supporting subject matter jurisdiction
in response to a court order explaining that deficiency.
See Blanchard, No. C16-1544JLR, Dkt. ## 10-11,
20-22; (Compl.) It therefore appears that amendment of the
current complaint would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep't
of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, in
consideration of Ms. Blanchard's pro se status,
the court GRANTS Ms. Blanchard leave to amend her complaint
to adequately allege subject matter
jurisdiction. Ms. Blanchard must file her amended
complaint, if any, no later than August 17, 2017. If she
chooses to amend her complaint, Ms. Blanchard must indicate,
either on the amended complaint itself or in a separate,
concurrent filing, (1) what allegations she has added to the
amended complaint that were not present in the initial
complaint, and (2) how those allegations support federal
jurisdiction. If Ms. Blanchard fails to timely respond to
this order or her amended complaint fails to demonstrate a
basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the
court will dismiss this matter without leave to amend.
 The court cautions Ms. Blanchard that
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders it without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa
Cty., 693 ...