United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Sessions' Motion
to Dismiss. [Dkt. # 18], and on Plaintiff West's Motions
for a Conference [Dkt. #22] and for Recusal of U.S. Attorney
Annette Hayes [Dkt. #23]. This is one of nine cases West has
filed related to her employment at the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard in Bremerton, which ended in August 2016.
case is a little different than the others, in that the
defendant is the Attorney General, rather than the Secretary
of the Navy, and the claims relate to Sessions' conduct
in defending the Secretary in the other cases, particularly
West v. Stackley, C17-5273RBL.
complaint alleges that Attorney General Sessions is abusing
his power in order to prevent West from litigating her case,
and that he “stole” documents (the civil cover
sheet, summons and complaint and) in West v.
Stackley, C17-5273RBL, and refused to sign her
summonses. The rest of the complaint alleges somewhat
incongruously that Sessions is a private citizen not entitled
to a representation from the U.S. Attorneys' office. And
she complains that U.S. Attorney Hayes does not represent
her, which is of course true, but is not at issue
because Hayes does not purport to represent plaintiff West;
she represents defendant Sessions.
seeks dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds, and because
West's passing reference to the ADA cannot state a claim
because she cannot sue a federal employer under that Act. And
he points out that West's complaint fails entirely to
allege that Sessions employed her, making her
employment-related claims not plausible.
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 plaintiff's 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] 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnotes omitted). This
requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned,
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly).
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. Id.
12(b)(6) motion, “a district court should grant leave
to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made,
unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be
cured by the allegation of other facts.” Cook,
Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911
F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). However, where the facts are
not in dispute, and the sole issue is whether there is
liability as a matter of substantive law, the court may deny
leave to amend. Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193,
195-96 (9th Cir. 1988).
claims cannot survive this standard. She again simply states
an accusation as a fact: “Sessions stole my
documents.” But the documents are right here on the
Court's electronic filing system [Dkt. #1], and if hard
copies are in Session's personal possession (which is
extremely doubtful) it is because she served them on
him. West's claim that Sessions actually
“stole” these documents from her is specious and
not plausible, not matter how liberally it is construed.
has filed nine cases and dozens of motions and requests in
this Court, this year. All are facially frivolous. Permitting
her to amend her complaint in this case would be futile; she
cannot plausibly allege that Sessions stole a public document
from her or otherwise personally interfered with her attempts
to litigate a different case. The Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and all of Plaintiff West's claims against
Defendant Sessions are DISMISSED with prejudice and without
leave to amend.
 The cases are:
West v. Stackley, C17-5246RBL,