United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is Plaintiff Naathon-Ray Johnson's complaint,
ECF No. 1. Mr. Johnson is proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers
reviewed Mr. Johnson's application to proceed in
forma pauperis and granted Mr. Johnson that status. ECF
No. 5. This Court is performing the second part of the
screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine
whether Mr. Johnson's lawsuit should be allowed to
proceed to service of the complaint upon Defendants. The
Court has reviewed the complaint and is fully informed.
following are the facts as alleged in Mr. Johnson's
complaint. Mr. Johnson was determined to be disabled in
either 2013 or 2014 because of the complications associated
with his Crohn's disease and spine. ECF No. 1 at 5. He
received social security income through a payee, who is a
person appointed by the government to manage the social
security income for someone who cannot manage it himself.
Id. at 5-6. With his social security income, Mr.
Johnson claims that leased a property in Colville, Washington
beginning in May of 2017. Id. at 6.
Johnson alleges that his payee failed to continue paying him
his social security income shortly after he began leasing the
property. ECF No. 1 at 6. He then alleges he went without
social security payments for several months. Id. He
claims that he pleaded with Defendant Social Security
Administration to set up a new payee, working with Defendant
Rural Resources. Id. at 6-7. He also claims that he
went through several evaluations with Defendant Alliance
Mental Health Services to help prove his entitlement to
social security income. Id. at 7.
this same time, Defendant claims he was having several
medical issues relating to an unknown neurological disorder.
ECF No. 1 at 8. He claims that these medical issues resulted
in several trips to Defendant Providence Mount Carmel
Hospital. Id. at 8-9. At one point, he claims that
Mount Carmel had Mr. Johnson “shipped out” to a
facility on the west side of Washington. Id. at 9.
Johnson also claims that Rural Resources did not assist him
with issues with his rental property in Colville. ECF No. 1
at 10. Mr. Johnson alleges that there were problems with the
heating and plumbing, and that his neighbors would constantly
steal things from his residence. Id. However, soon
after, Mr. Johnson claims that he received forged eviction
papers and a notice of abandonment of property. Id.
at 10-11. Mr. Johnson also claims that the power was turned
off in January of 2019. Id. at 11.
Johnson then claims that Defendant Spokane Sheriff's
Department arrested him for trespassing on his own property.
ECF No. 1 at 11. He was placed in Stevens County Jail and
charged with trespassing. Id. at 12. While in
prison, Mr. Johnson claims that he was not given his needed
medication and was denied access to legal envelopes and
materials. Id. at 13. At his preliminary hearing,
Mr. Johnson alleges that he stated that he wanted to
represent himself, but the Stevens County Superior Court
denied his request and appointed Mr. Johnson a public
defender. Id. Mr. Johnson claims he was not given an
opportunity to speak at his preliminary hearing. Id.
He also claims that he was never given an information,
complaint, citation, or police report. Id. at 12.
Mr. Johnson claims that he was released on the same day.
he was released, Mr. Johnson claims that he returned to his
rental property and discovered that all of his belongings
were missing. ECF No. 1 at 13. While he tried to inventory
what was missing, Mr. Johnson claims that he was again
arrested for trespassing. Id. He claims that his
second preliminary hearing was just like his first.
Id. at 14.
Johnson then filed this complaint against Defendants,
claiming that they violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1 at 3. He
also claims that they violated the Social Security Act,
Americans with Disabilities Act, and “State
law/Regulations Concurrent with federal law.”
REQUIREMENT AND LEGAL STANDARD
district court must screen complaints brought by litigants
proceeding in forma pauperis and shall dismiss the
proceeding at any time if the action or appeal is frivolous
or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
Court reviews Plaintiff's complaint to determine if it
gives enough notice and detail to allow the defendants to
“reasonably prepare a response.” See,
e.g., Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071
(9th Cir. 2009). The notice pleading standards are stated, in
part, in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which
Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a
claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs ...