United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff William McKoby has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #3.
The Complaint was posted on the docket on October 17, 2017.
Dkt. #4. Summonses have not yet been issued.
McKoby brings this action against Defendants Glen Post and
the internet service provider CenturyLink. Dkt. #4 at 1. The
Complaint indicates that Mr. McKoby's “dear
friend” and “co-plaintiff” Ms. Whitney
McCoy has been “criminally/fraudulently abused”
by Defendants via “acts of Criminal
Conspiracies.” Id. However, Ms. McCoy has not
signed the Complaint or otherwise appeared as a plaintiff in
this matter, and is allegedly dead. See id. at 2. It
appears from the Complaint that Mr. McKoby intends to
represent Ms. McCoy's estate.
to the Complaint, Ms. McCoy stated to Mr. McKoby that she
requested help from CenturyLink with “internet modem
services, ” and “how to set up and use the modem
and internet, ” did not receive adequate customer
service, and became “[p]hysically & emotionally
& mentally destroyed.” Id. at 2.
CenturyLink “continually extorted money from [her]
bank… over $5000… for over two years for
internet service [she] never used.” Id. The
Complaint alleges that Defendants have “moral blame
culpable of Homicide against Ms. Whitney McCoy.”
McKoby also pleads that Defendants have violated him
“emotionally/financially/ mentally through extortion,
” citing as examples that “CENTURYLINK et. al 2X
sent the modem to the incorrect address, ” and that
CenturyLink added an erroneous $77 charge, removed it, and
added an erroneous $20 charge. Id. at 4-5. Mr.
McKoby has apparently sued Defendants in state court on these
facts. Id. at 5. According to the Complaint, which
cites the docket, CenturyLink's motion to dismiss was
granted, Mr. McKoby's motion for reconsideration was
denied, and he appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
Id. at 8. Defendants' allegedly improper
behavior in that state court action make up a portion of this
Complaint, and Plaintiff accuses Defendants' counsel of
violating several criminal laws. Id. at 5-9.
Mr. McKoby includes block quotes from multiple federal and
state statutes, he does not list out separate causes of
action or connect the above facts coherently to the cited
statutes allegedly violated. He has included a clear,
separate section labeled “Plaintiffs Demand.”
Id. at 10. Mr. McKoby seeks a “WRIT FOR
PREPARATION OF DISCOVER.” Id. He also seeks
$1, 050, 000.00, or, in the alternative, “full phone
service, and internet as has been, at $22.83 per month in
total for life - FIRM.” Id.
Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action
fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Complaint does not support its claims with specific facts
presented in a clear and understandable manner. Mr.
McKoby's allegations are extremely difficult to follow
with unconnected facts and vague accusations of crime. It is
unclear from the Complaint how Mr. McKoby can legally
represent Ms. McCoy's estate, or how Defendants can be
charged by Plaintiff with violations of criminal law. Most
importantly, it is unclear to the Court how the facts as
presented in this case-poor customer service, erroneous
charges on an internet bill- could constitute extortion or
fraud. The Court notes Plaintiff has not met the heightened
pleading standard for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b). Even if Mr. McKoby could plead extortion or
fraud, the Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction
unless the facts supported the application of a federal
statute. Finally, because an underlying action has already
been litigated by these parties on the merits in state court,
this case could easily be dismissed under the doctrine of
res judicata. Any allegations of improper behavior
by Defendants' counsel in the underlying action are
properly brought before that state court judge.
all of the above, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a
claim and appears frivolous and malicious. Plaintiff's
Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately
explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and
plain statement telling the Court (1) the separate causes of
action upon which his claims are based, (2) how Defendants
violated each of those laws causing harm to Plaintiff, (3)
why this Court has jurisdiction over these claims, (4) why
these claims are not duplicative of the underlying state
court action, and (5) why this case should not be dismissed
as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six
double-spaced (6) pages. Plaintiff is not permitted
to file additional pages as attachments. The Court will take
no further action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a
Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail
above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the
date of this Order. Failure to file this Response
will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk shall ...