United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss. Dkt. ## 10, 11. Plaintiff opposes the Motions. Dkt.
# 22. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Sing Cho
Ng's Complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 4.
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as
moot. Dkt. ## 10, 11.
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendants Bing King Association, Seattle Chinatown
International District Preservation and Development
Authority, Department of Planning and Development of the City
of Seattle, Yao Shen Chin, Ping Mark, Kin Chuen Leung, Tom K.
Cheng, Sunny Lew, Shek Lau, Jim Locke, Francis Wong, Ming Bo
Fung, Paul Mar, Cara Bertron, Jim Metz, Geoff Tallent, Fiath
Lumsden, Diane Sugimura, Melissa Lawrie, John Does and Jane
Does. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff also submitted an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable
Brian A. Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt. # 3.
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 Defendants conspired to discriminatorily target
him and several unnamed parties in his proposed class to
drive them out of their low-income single room occupancies at
the New American Hotel to allow for a residential and
commercial development he refers to as the “7th and
Jackson Development.” Dkt. # 4. The New American Hotel
was owned and managed by Defendant Bing Kung Association.
This alleged conspiracy resulted in a “series of
unlawful housing practices” carried out by Defendants
from 2014 through October 2015. Id. Plaintiff
contends that his apartment managers threatened that the
“in-room water supply would be permanently shut off,
” told tenants that they must move out by the end of
the year, and “bann[ed] use of electric rice cooker in
SRO due to potential fire hazard caused by power overload in
SRO socket.” Plaintiff also alleges that three Bing
King Association employees and “two persons in uniforms
of City of Seattle” broke into his apartment. This
allegation is repeated over ten times in his Complaint.
Id. Plaintiff was eventually evicted from his
apartment for non-payment of rent by court order. Plaintiff
asserts that these actions were in violation of his civil
rights and were targeted toward tenants of Chinese descent.
among Plaintiff's allegations are references to
misappropriated city funding, conflicts with “civilian
businessman Scott Shapiro, an agreement between Seattle's
Department of Planning and Development and the Seattle
Chinatown International District Preservation and Development
Authority (“SCIDPDA”) to cover up the
misappropriation of city funding, and an allegation that the
SCIDPDA acted as a “quasi governmental” entity
serving as a “code compliance watch-dog in the
Chinatown/ID . . . working under the authority of city
government.” Id. Plaintiff also submits
correspondence, emails, a cached webpage that previously
posted plans for the “7th and Jackson Development,
” and other documents obtained from the City in support
of his claims. These submissions constitute approximately 1,
000 pages of documents. Plaintiff's Complaint is 57 pages
the length of his Complaint and the amount of supporting
documents submitted by Plaintiff, none of the evidence
provides a factual basis sufficient to raise his allegations
above mere speculation. Plaintiff bases his allegations on
rumors, theories, and seemingly unrelated events.
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to make clear which alleged
facts apply to which Defendant, and which alleged facts
support which cause of action. Plaintiff asserts claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985, as
well as several state laws, but none of his allegations form
a cognizable claim under any of those causes of action. Even
taking all allegations in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint
is frivolous and fails to state a claim showing that he is
entitled to relief.
reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. # 4. Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss are DENIED as moot. Dkt. ## 10,
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 timeframe, or
if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not ...