United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
instant matter comes before the Court sua sponte on
the Court's Order to Show Cause, Dkt. #13. Pro
se Plaintiff Rita Cagliostro has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #2.
Summons has not yet been issued, Defendant Forrest R. Collins
has not appeared.
Cagliostro's original Complaint was posted on the docket
on March 27, 2018. Dkt. #3. That same day the Court issued an
Order directing Ms. Cagliostro to file an amended complaint.
Dkt. #4. On April 10, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed an improper
Motion to Amend her Complaint with attachments. Dkts. #5 and
#6. On April 11, 2018, the Court issued an Order directing
Ms. Cagliostro to file a new Amended Complaint. Dkt. #9.
April 23, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed the Amended Complaint at
issue. Dkt. #11. Ms. Cagliostro lists claims for violation of
the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, for
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
under certain other regulations and statutes, and for
violation of the American Bar Association's rules of
professional conduct. See Dkt. #11 at 3-4. However,
these claims are only mentioned in name, and under a section
titled "Cause of Action, " Ms. Cagliostro only
pleads one cause of action, negligence. See Dkt. #11
at 6-14. The events giving rise to this cause of action
appear to have occurred solely in the fall of 2013. See,
e.g., Id. at 6 ("On (date) October, 24,
2013 at (place) Multnomah County Court, the
defendant(s): (1) performed acts that a person of ordinary
prudence in the same or similar circumstances would not have
done; or (2) failed to perform acts that a person of ordinary
prudence would have done under the same or similar
circumstances...") (parentheticals in original). Events
occurring more recently in the Amended Complaint appear to
relate solely to Ms. Cagliostro's claims of ongoing
damages, not new actions of the Defendant. Ms.
Cagliostro's request for relief indicates that she is
seeking hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in
damages related to her legal studies bachelor of science
degree being placed on discharge status, as well as $500, 000
in punitive damages, $1, 000, 000 in compensatory damages,
and "$3, 800, 000 for pain and suffering of defamation,
triggers of estrangement with my child and mother and loss of
years building a real life with both of them." Dkt. #11
at 15 (emphasis omitted). In her relief section, Ms.
Cagliostro again reiterates that this relief is based on a
claim of negligence. See id.
the above, on April 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause stating that it appeared Ms. Cagliostro's
claim was untimely and that her requested damages "do
not appear to be proximately caused by the actions of
Defendant." Dkt. #13 at 3. The Court directed Plaintiff
to write a short and plain statement telling the Court
"(1) why her negligence claim is timely, and (2) why
this case should not be dismissed as frivolous."
Id. at 3-4. The Court stated "[t]his
Response may not exceed four double-spaced (4)
pages" and that attachments were not permitted.
Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).
9, 2018, Ms. Cagliostro filed a 10-page document. The first
page is a single-spaced "Summary." Dkt. 14 at 1.
There is also a caption page, "Cover Letter, " four
page brief, signature page, and two pages of attachments.
Although the Court appreciates Ms. Cagliostro's efforts
to limit her briefing to four pages, the Court finds that she
has included unique arguments in her Summary and Cover
Letter, and filed attachments. In sum, Ms. Cagliostro
violated the Court's Order to Show Cause by exceeding the
page limit in her Response.
the Court has reviewed Ms. Cagliostro's substantive
arguments. With regard to the Court's first question, Ms.
Cagliostro argues her negligence claim is timely given Or.
Rev. Stat. § 12.160, which tolls the applicable statute
of limitation if, "at the time the cause of action
accrues the person has a disabling mental condition that bars
the person from comprehending rights that the person is
otherwise bound to know, " such tolling not to exceed
five years. See Dkt. #14 at 3. She also appears to
argue that the discovery rule may apply to her claim, such
that she has two years from when she discovered or reasonably
should have discovered that she was harmed. See Dkt.
#14 at 4. Ms. Cagliostro makes frequent reference to her
mental health and receiving treatment, stating at one point
that she should be "considered disabled due to the
complexity of explaining the anomalies of this case
injuries." Id. at 7. The Court finds that,
although her briefing is extremely difficult to follow,
has adequately responded to the Court's first question.
Court's second question asked Ms. Cagliostro to explain
why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. Ms.
Cagliostro's Response does not address the Court's
concern in a clear manner. At one point, she states
"[p]ain and suffering triggers caused proximately from
the actions caused by Mr. Collins are clearly recorded with
my many clinicians since September 20, 2014 and Social
Security Office award specific to triggers and PTSD that I
now receive treatment for." Id. at 7. She goes
on to state, "Mr. Collins proximate causes [sic] in
injuries I have been ongoing to treatments for Mondays, Tues,
Wednesdays, Thurs and Saturdays in WA and OR every week for
Four [sic] and a half years on kidnapping of my child October
29, 2013." Id. The Court has re-examined the
Amended Complaint after reviewing this Response, and believes
that Ms. Cagliostro is asserting a negligence claim against
former opposing counsel in a court matter that separated Ms.
Cagliostro from her child.
all of the above, the Court finds that Ms. Cagliostro has
sufficiently pled her claim of negligence for Defendant
Collins to be able to respond, and that the standard for
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) has not been
met. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to issue
summons in this case. The Clerk shall send a copy of this
Order to Plaintiff at 212 ALASKAN WAY S. #205 SEATTLE, WA
 For example, Ms. Cagliostro states
"My rights cannot be determined unless candor exist.
(Trump, Sessions verses [sic] McCabe, News, 2018) Conclusion
of the law is satisfied after both/all parties including me
have been given opportunity to be heard (Fifth/Fourteenth
Amendments)." Dkt. #14 at 5. As another example, Ms.
Cagliostro states "Article III assures plaintiff that a
federal court hears claims of a crime that is a violation of
federal law for kidnapping conspiracy 18 U.S.C. ss 1201 or
other kidnapping appropriate law, linking federal and
states." Id. at 7.
 The Amended Complaint makes reference
to a "court ordered parental mental health evaluation
that Forrest Collins was reckless with, " and "the
opponent that Forrest Collins was providing service