United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Se Plaintiff, Meredith McGlown, has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt.
#3. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on October 23, 2019.
Dkt. #4. Summonses have not yet been issued.
main thrust of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be her
discontent with the results in four other cases she has
previously filed with this Court. Id. at 7
(referencing McGlown v. Washington, C17-202JCC;
McGlown v. Lewis, C17-924RAJ; McGlown v. Dept.
Homeland Security, C18-1403RSM; McGlown v. Mellburg
Fin. Group Inc., C19-29RSL). All four were dismissed by
this Court, all four were appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and all four were dismissed
by the Court of Appeals (three as frivolous and one on
jurisdictional grounds). Plaintiff complains that mandates
have issued and that a date for oral argument has never been
set and seeks to “meet with the Appellant Commissioner
in chambers.”. Id. at 5, 8-9. Perhaps
alternatively, Plaintiff seeks “an injunction to have
[her] case prioritized & set forth for a trial in a Court
of law in the Nakamura U.S. Appeals court house.”
Id. at 9.
this, the Court is unable to discern a coherent thread
linking Plaintiff's various allegations. Plaintiff
indicates that Washington “is in litigation in a court
of law over contractual breaking of a governmental contract
that did not get honored by the U.S. Congressional House of
the United States nor by the Nation of Islam.”
Id. at 5. She alleges that “[d]amages to the
case has resulted in the Makat Trust being replaced & to
the terrorist acts & threats upon my persons the loss of
business & the issuance of my bonds from the United
States of America. Id. Further, she alleges that she
“was extorted & raped through the Microsoft
Symantec 365 app and  was gene typed” and denied
adequate medical care by a Swedish Hematologist. Id.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
will dismiss a 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).
Complaint suffers from various defects. Plaintiff does not
provide any basis for the relief she appears to seek-hearings
in her otherwise resolved cases-and the action appears
frivolous. Outside of Plaintiff's claims related to her
resolved cases, Plaintiff's Complaint does not appear to
set forth a claim for relief as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a). The Court is unable to identify the
causes of action Plaintiff seeks to pursue, the facts
supporting those causes of action, or the relief requested.
Dismissal appears appropriate.
more significantly, Plaintiff does not establish a clear
jurisdictional basis for the Court to hear this case. 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 ‘rising under' the
Constitution or laws of the United States” or 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 omitted). Plaintiff's
Complaint does none of these and alleges that the Court's
jurisdictional requirements “do not apply.”
Plaintiff's Complaint appears deficient.
Response to this Order, Plaintiff must file a short and plain
statement telling the Court (1) the law or laws upon which
her claims are based, (2) how the disputes fall within the
scope of those laws, (3) the specific relief she seeks, and
(4) how her Complaint otherwise fits within the Court's
limited jurisdiction. The Response may not exceed
six (6) double-spaced pages. Plaintiff is not
to file additional pages as attachments.
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a
Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail
above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the
date of this Order. Failure to file this
Response will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk
shall send a copy of this Order to ...