United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Amelia Butler, was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter. Dkt.
#5. Plaintiff has filed both a Complaint (Dkt. #6) and an
Amended Complaint (Dkt. #7). While both appear deficient, the
Court will focus its analysis on Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint. Summonses have not yet been issued.
is suing her hair stylist, Si ho Raugh. In her Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff does not detail the events leading to
her claim or directly state the damage or harm that she
suffered. Rather, Plaintiff offers only conclusory statements
that she was harmed and seeks damages of three million
dollars. From all the materials filed by Plaintiff, it
appears that she got her hair dyed and subsequently
“developed a chemical burn.” Dkt. #6 at 10.
Documents indicate that Plaintiff informed employees that her
scalp was burning but that the hair dye was left on her hair
for an additional fifteen minutes. Dkt. #4 at 3-5.
Confusingly, Plaintiff also attaches a statement from Mi Na
Kamg indicating that she colored and washed Plaintiff's
hair and that Plaintiff indicated that her hair “felt
great, ” paid, and left. Dkt. #7 at 8.
seems to allege that the hair stylist was negligent in
allowing her scalp to be injured, violated Washington State
sanitary standards for cosmetologists, violated state laws
related to professional conduct, and was general dishonesty.
Id. at 2-5. Plaintiff further alleges that after
being injured, Defendant interfered with investigations into
the matter and covered up her actions by making false
statements. Id. Under a heading entitled
“Jurisdiction, ” Plaintiff lists: “Libel,
Slander, King County jurisdictions, Fraud, defamation of
character, intentional infliction of harm, emotional
distress, and the Damages of $3million.” Id.
plaintiff is granted IFP status, the court will dismiss the
complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim,
raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, as
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a case is
properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford
Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952,
957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the pleading stage, must
be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper
basis for the federal court to assert subject matter
jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors
Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). A plaintiff
may establish federal question jurisdiction by pleading a
“colorable claim ‘arising under' the
Constitution or laws of the United States” or diversity
jurisdiction by pleading “a claim between parties of
diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional
amount, currently set at $75, 000.” Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citations
Amended Complaint does not establish a basis for federal
question jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not identify any
colorable claim under federal law or the Constitution. The
closest that Plaintiff comes are her conclusory pleadings
21. [Defendant] intentionally refusing immigration laws and
rules by being dishonest and harming a U.S. citizen.
22. Refusing [Plaintiff] her constitutional rights.
23. [Defendant] is harming a U.S. intentionally.
24. [Defendant] Scamming immigration by being dishonest and
hurting a U.S. citizen intentionally.
25. [Defendant] intentionally set to harm U.S. citizens by
hiding information about my injuries and refusing to tell the
Dkt. #7 at 5. But these conclusory statements do not raise a
colorable claim over which the Court can exercise
jurisdiction or upon which relief can be granted.
Amended Complaint also does not establish a basis for
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that both she and
Defendant are citizens of Washington. Dkt. #7 at 1. As plead,
there is not diversity between the parties. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a) (providing original jurisdiction over
civil matters where the controversy exceeds $75, 000 and is
between “citizens of different States”). Also,
other than Plaintiff's unsupported allegation her damages
are three million dollars, there is no reasonable indication
that the dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,
the Court notes that the Amended Complaint also appears
deficient under the applicable pleading rules. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”). Plaintiff does not
adequately allege facts supporting her claims.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a complaint need not
include detailed allegations, but ...