United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
instant matter comes before the Court sua sponte and
on the Court's prior Order to Show Cause, Dkt. #11.
Pro se Plaintiff Stacie Davis has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt.
#7. She filed three complaints in this action on August 29,
2019. Dkts. ##1-1, 1-2, and 1-3. In response to the
Court's Order to specify her intended proposed complaint,
she filed two additional complaints. See Dkts. #6-1;
#6-2. Summonses have not yet been issued.
brings suit against the following defendants: (1) 76 Stop
Store Store Owner(s); (2) Greg C. Farland, the CEO of
Phillips 66 HQ; (3) Carmen Best, the Seattle Police
Department Chief of Police; (4) Seattle Mayor Jenny A.
Durkan; and (5) Phillips 66 HQ Corporation. Read together,
Plaintiff's complaints allege an incident occurring
around 11:00 pm on January 1, 2019 at ¶ 76 Stop
Store/Phillips 66 Store in Seattle, Washington. Plaintiff
claims that the store clerk yelled at and attacked her but,
after Plaintiff called the Seattle police, officers never
arrived on the scene. Dkt. #8-3 at 6-7. Plaintiff brings
claims against both the store owner and the CEO of Phillips
66 HQ for not having another clerk available to assist
Plaintiff at the time of the assault nor “having a
backup plan in place” following the assault.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff also brings claims against Mayor
Durkan for failing to ensure the Seattle police followed up
on her assault case, and Seattle Police Chief Best for
failing to make an arrest based on Plaintiff's alleged
assault and injury. Dkt. #8-2 at 6. The store clerk that
allegedly attacked Plaintiff is not listed among the
defendants. See Dkt. #8-2 at 2; Dkt. #8-3 at 2; Dkt.
#8-4 at 2.
checked the box for “federal question” as the
basis for this Court's jurisdiction but left blank a
section in each of her complaints for “the specific
federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the
United States Constitution that are at issue in this
case.” Dkt. #8 at 3. Plaintiff requests damages ranging
from $500 million to $1 billion. Dkts. #8-3 at 5; #8-4 at 6.
She also requests the Court “have these defendants come
up with a better tracking system” related to assault
complaints. Dkt. #8-4 at 7.
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).
claims and the underlying facts set forth in her complaints
are difficult to follow due to her filing multiple, separate
complaints with varying details. She does not cite any law or
causes of action in her complaints other than vague
descriptions of “allowed violence, negligence and
discrimination” and violation of “civil
rights”, see, e.g., Dkt. #8-2 at 6, making it
unclear how this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
various claims. She also provides no basis for her request of
at least $500 million in damages, which she revised to $1
billion in a separate complaint. See Dkt. #8-1 at 5.
She has also requested that this case be “done to where
it could be televised from the state that I am in due to the
long distance travel . . . .” Dkt. #6 at 1.
September 27, 2019, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause
highlighting the above deficiencies and ordering Plaintiff to
submit a Response within twenty-one days indicating why this
case should not be dismissed. Dkt. #11. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to respond with “a short and plain statement
telling the Court: (1) the laws or statutes upon which her
claims are based; (2) exactly what facts support each of the
alleged violations of law; and (3) what specific injury
Plaintiff suffered because of each alleged violation of
law.” Id. at 2-3. The Court warned that
Plaintiff's Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if
not adequately addressed, would require dismissal.
Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
Court has received Plaintiff's Response. Dkt. #12. On
October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document that lists the
following statutes: (1) deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; (2) deprivation of equal rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981; (3) criminal contempt proceedings, penalties,
and trial by jury under 42 U.S.C. § 1995; (4)
discrimination in public facilities under 42 U.S.C. §
2000b-2; (5) hate crime; (6) negligence; and (7) “other
causes of action to come.” Dkt. #12 at 1.
Plaintiff's Response provides no other information. She
does not clearly connect the specific actions of any of the
defendants with those laws and the damages Plaintiff
incurred, nor does she describe what specific injuries she
suffered because of each alleged violation of law.
Court has reviewed the Complaint, Plaintiff's Response,
and the remainder of the record and finds that Plaintiff has
failed to adequately respond to the Court's Order to Show
Cause. Plaintiff's request for damages ranging from $500
million to $1 billion is also frivolous. Given all of this,
dismissal without prejudice is warranted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
matter is CLOSED.
Clerk shall terminate all pending ...