United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the
reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES
pro se Plaintiff Adbikadir Shire's complaint
with leave to amend. Dkt. # 3. The Court
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
Counsel as moot. Dkt. # 11.
March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant
Immigration Custom Enforcement. Dkt. # 1. The next day,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Dkt. # 2. On March 8, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order because Plaintiff did
not establish a likelihood of success on the merits,
irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the
public interest. Dkt. # 3. Plaintiff also submitted an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 5.
The Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt.
# 2. On March 22, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint to add Defendants, Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services, Harborview Medical
Center, and SIS Security Industry. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff's
various filings also refer to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and Seattle Fire Station 31 as Defendants. Dkt.
## 1, 2, 15.
Court's authority to grant in forma pauperis
status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is
required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
plaintiff's case if the Court determines that “the
action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis
complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law or fact.
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2005). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v.
Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at
1129). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint
for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual
allegations that “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a plaintiff
proceeds pro se, the court must construe the
plaintiff's complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent
Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
alleges that on January 19, 2017, the Defendants shot him
with a bullet that contained a transmitter G.P.S. outside of
a 7-11. Dkt. ## 1, 2, 14. Defendants then brought Plaintiff
to the hospital and “manually put a neural monitoring
device inside [him].” Id. Plaintiff claims
that he was assaulted, that this assault caused him severe
emotional distress, and that this was a violation of his
civil rights. Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of
$100 million. Id. Plaintiff provides no other
information or details to support his claim.
construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff and giving due deference to Plaintiff's pro
se status, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
showing he is entitled to relief. The Amended Complaint does
not state which Defendant is responsible for which action or
how these actions violated his civil rights. Plaintiff fails
to provide any details regarding the alleged shooting or his
medical condition and fails to provide any support for his
request for damages. Assuming that Plaintiff is alleging
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several
Defendants, the Amended Complaint does not contain any
allegations to support such claims.
reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 14) and
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
Counsel as moot (Dkt. # 11). Within fourteen (14)
days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file
an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed
above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within
that time frame, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint
that does ...