United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.
District Court has referred this matter to the undersigned
pursuant to General Order 02-19. Before the Court are
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. 1), Proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. 5),
and Motion for Default (Dkt. 8).
26, 2019, this Court determined that plaintiff's initial
complaint failed to state a claim and granted plaintiff leave
to amend her complaint. See Dkt. 2. On July 24,
2019, plaintiff timely submitted a Proposed Amended
Complaint. Dkt. 5. On August 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a
Motion for Default. Dkt. 8. Curiously, defendant has appeared
in this matter despite the lack of an operative complaint,
issuance of a summons signed by the clerk, and proper
service. See Dkts. 3, 4, 6, 7; see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 4 and 5.
plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, her complaint is subject to
sua sponte dismissal if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief is granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). However, because plaintiff is pro se, if
the complaint is subject to dismissal, the Court will afford
her the opportunity to amend her complaint unless it is clear
that no amendment could save the complaint. See Jackson
v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003).
proposed amended complaint appears to state claims related to
her child being removed from her custody by Child Protective
Services. The amended complaint does not state a valid claim
for relief because plaintiff appears to use a State of
Washington form to file her complaint, does not make a short
and plain statement of her claim, and does not properly name
the persons who allegedly committed the harms for purposes of
a § 1983 claim. Nonetheless, because plaintiff's
proposed amended complaint appears to attempt to correct the
errors from her initial complaint, this Court again grants
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.
Form of Complaint
first page of plaintiff's amended complaint appears to
use a form for the District Court at Pierce County, State of
Washington. See Dkt. 5 at 1. To the extent that
plaintiff intends to file a claim with the State of
Washington, rather than in a federal court, plaintiff must
submit her claim to the proper court. To file a claim in
federal court, plaintiff must direct her claims to the
federal district court and must allege a claim that can be
brought in federal court. The proper forms and information
for pro se filers, including a pro se
handbook, can be found on the district court's website at
eight of plaintiff's amended complaint, plaintiff appears
to use the proper form for United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, however, the pages of the
document appear to be out of order. Dkt. 5 at 8. In her third
amended complaint, plaintiff should ensure that the pages of
the document are in the proper order.
states that she has “the right to invoke common
law.” Dkt. 5 at 20. Only three types of cases may be
filed in federal court: (1) Cases where the United States is
either the plaintiff or defendant; (2) Cases brought under
federal laws; and (3) Cases where the parties reside in
different states. Plaintiff also appears to allege a §
1983 civil rights claim, which is based on the “federal
question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants federal
district courts original jurisdiction over cases
‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.'” Wright v. Associated Ins.
Companies, Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1250 (7th Cir. 1994)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). The requirements for
bringing a § 1983 claim are discussed further below.
Defendants and Claims
appears to name as defendant the State of Washington Child
Protective Services (“CPS”) (see Dkt. 5
at 12), as well as multiple individually named CPS employees,
several public defenders, and several case workers and
guardians ad litem. Dkt. 5 at 9-11.
states the following claims: “trespassing, stealing
property, violating civil right, perjury fraud, [sic]
neglected of my property, [denied] right for fair [hearing],
and abuse of my property[.]” Dkt. 5 at 11. It appears
that plaintiff's “property” refers to her
child who was removed from her care by Washington State Child
Protective Services. See Dkt. 5 at 20 (“my
mother she helped cps steal my property. . . [and] they said
they would release my property to me and we even did a safety
plan . . . my property was still in the hospital”).
Plaintiff appears to claim that an unnamed female committed
perjury and fraud by lying on paperwork that plaintiff used
illegal substances to induce a judge to sign a court order to
remove plaintiff's child from her ...