United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR COURT-APPOINTED
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Cora Lasham, has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this
matter. Dkt. #2. Her Complaint was filed on May 22, 2019.
Dkt. #3. Summonses have not yet been issued. Plaintiff has
also filed an Application for Court Appointed Counsel. Dkt.
Complaint alleges employment discrimination against
Defendants Sky West Airlines, Inc., Jackson Hole Airport, and
St. John's Medical Hospital. Id. at 1. Plaintiff
indicates that she was employed at Jackson Hole Airport in
Wyoming and brings state law claims for personal injury and
breach of an employment contract and federal claims under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”), as codified, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621
to 634, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§
12112 to 12117. Id. at 3-4.
can be gathered from the scarce allegations of the Complaint,
Plaintiff appears to allege that she was “injured after
severe fall no accommodations made/terminated.”
Id. at 5. Plaintiff further indicates that she
complains of the termination of her employment, failure to
accommodate her disability, unequal terms and conditions of
her employment, and “negligent responses to
injury.” Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff does not
indicate how Sky West Airlines, Inc. or St. John's
Medical Hospital were involved and does not indicate what
relief she is seeking.
is proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to
that section, the Court shall dismiss an action if at any
time it determines that the action 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)(B); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (clarifying
that § 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings, not just
those filed by prisoners). A plaintiff's complaint must
allege sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that
the plaintiff is entitled to relief or rise above speculation
that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Further, a complaint must contain “a demand for
the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
the applicable pleading standards, Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff gives no indication of the relief she seeks. Nor
does she provide adequate factual allegations to support her
claims. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a complaint need
not include detailed allegations, but must have “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do”).
Plaintiff does not indicate what her injury was or that it
rose to the level of a disability to support her ADA claims.
See Moore v. Donahoe, No. C11-05517 LB, 2012 WL
2979024 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2012) (normal and temporary
illness that was neither permanent or long-term in nature was
not a disability). Plaintiff also does not allege her age in
support of her ADEA claim, the existence of a contract in
support of her breach of contract claim, or the manner in
which any of the Defendants are responsible for her injury in
support of her personal injury claim. Plaintiff has left many
of the sections in the form complaint blank including the
statement of her claims, facts of her case, exhaustion of
remedies, and relief sought. Lastly, Plaintiff's
Complaint gives no indication why the three Defendants-one
located in Utah and two located in Wyoming-are subject to
this Court's personal jurisdiction.
the numerous deficiencies, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is
dismissed. However, a court dismissing a complaint should
freely grant leave to amend “unless it is absolutely
clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be
cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d
1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); see also DeSoto v. Yellow
Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“A district court does not err in denying leave to
amend where the amendment would be futile.”) (citing
Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th
Cir. 1990)). The Court finds it appropriate to grant
Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, as indicated below.
has also filed an Application for Court-Appointed Counsel.
Dkt. #4. Generally, civil litigants have no right to have
counsel appointed. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,
970 (9th Cir. 2009). However, under “exceptional
circumstances, ” a court may appoint counsel for
indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1). Id. A finding of exceptional
circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood
of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of
the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon,
789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, the
Plaintiff's deficient Complaint leaves the Court wholly
unable to evaluate her claims. As a result, the Court is
unable to rule on the propriety of appointing counsel and
denies Plaintiff's Application.
having reviewed Plaintiff's filings and the remainder of
the record, the Court finds and ORDERS:
Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. #3) is DISMISSED without
Plaintiff's Application for Court-Appointed Counsel (Dkt.
#4) is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her Complaint. Within
twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint that satisfies the applicable pleading
standards and remedies the deficiencies identified in this
Order. Failure to file an amended complaint within twenty-one
(21) days of this Order will result in the matter being
Plaintiff files an amended complaint within twenty-one (21)
days of this Order, she may file a new (and complete)