United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
RICHARD CREATURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
District Court has referred this matter to the undersigned
pursuant to General Order 02-19. Plaintiff, who is pro
se, filed her initial application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on July 29, 2019.
Dkt. 1. Plaintiff's IFP application was deficient and she
was granted leave to correct it. Dkts. 3, 4. Before the Court
is plaintiff's second IFP application and complaint. Dkt.
6. Plaintiff has also filed a notice of removal. Dkt. 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
plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint unless it is
clear that no amendment could save the complaint. See
Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003).
proper forms and information for pro se filers,
including a pro se handbook, can be found on the
district court's website at
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this Court must
“‘construe the pleadings liberally and . . .
afford the [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.'”
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1
(9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)); see also Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice”). Nonetheless, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Each
allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). Moreover, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual information to “state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007).
se litigants must “abide by the rules of the court
in which he litigates.” Carter v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Service, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.
1986). This Court will not supply essential elements of the
claim that were not initially pled. Pena v. Gardner,
976 F.2d 469, 471-72 (9th Cir. 1992).
states that the basis for federal court jurisdiction is
“US CONSTAMENDMENT X- ABRIDGED RIGHTS 18 U.S. CODE
242.” Dkt. 6-1 at 3. Specifically, plaintiff states
that defendant Greater Lakes Discovery Center
“willfully subjected deprivation of state law and
deprived rights under statutory rights RCW
10.77.088(1)(B)(ii) were not the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people by a medical facility.” Dkt. 6-1 at 3.
states that the amount in controversy is more than $75, 000
because “defendants failed to release the plaintiff due
to her disability and its failure of its health care entity
facilities to accommodate the needs of plaintiffs violated
Rights and Law prohibiting Discrimination based on
disability, consistent with the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Statutory Laws and Procedures
entitled the plaintiff . . . to relief.” Dkt. 6-1 at 5.
statement of the claim, plaintiff states that “the
defendants failed to release the plaintiff due to her
disability and subjected deprivation of Rights, an amended
court order that only required . . . only a 72 hour
evaluation without treatment but instead, the defendants
deprived the plaintiff of Rights under the color of State Law
RCW 10.77.088; RCW 71.55 and subjected plaintiff to
discrimination.” Dkt. 6-1 at 5.
liberally, plaintiff claims that defendants violated state
and federal laws by failing to release plaintiff after a
court ordered 72-hour evaluation.
claim for relief repeats plaintiff's prior statements
that defendants “subjected the plaintiff to deprivation
of rights due to her disability . . . and caused plaintiff to
suffer damages, loss, humiliation, [d]eprivation of Civil
Rights and the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Dkt
6-1 at 5. However, plaintiff does not state what relief she
is entitled to.
appears that plaintiff has a viable claim for relief, but
plaintiff does not state what relief she is seeking.
Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000, but does not say what amount of damages she is seeking.
According to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a claim for relief must contain “a demand for ...