United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Eurest
Boeing's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss
pro se Plaintiff Chong Yu Zhang's Complaint.
Dkt. # 7 at 1. For the reasons below, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim and DENIES
Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement as
Chong Yu Zhang (“Plaintiff”) alleges that his
employer, Eurest Compass Group, shorted his wages, drove him
out, and terminated him without notice. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9.
Plaintiff also claims that he reported the wage issue to his
local union representative, and they refused to investigate
or provide material to the Washington Human Rights
Commission. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges
that “[General Manager] Kris Villager defamed me, I
threatened her, to hire a hitmen against her, to burn Boeing
factory . . .” Id. at 9.
5, 2019, Plaintiff sued Eurest Boeing alleging that they
shorted his wages, drove him out, and terminated him without
notice. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9. Defendant now moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt.
# 7 at 1. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Dkt. #
Court's authority to grant in forma pauperis
status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is
required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
plaintiff's case if the Court determines that “the
action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis complaints, not just those filed by
prisoners”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a
basis in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails to state a
claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v.
Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at
1129). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint
for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual
allegations that “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550
U.S. at 568. Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the
court must construe the plaintiff's complaint liberally.
Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011
(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Complaint alleges almost no factual allegations to support
his claims. Dkt. # 1. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at
555 (“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to
relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do”). For example, Plaintiff alleges that his
wages were shorted, but does not allege how his wages were
shorted or any other facts to support his claim. Dkt. # 1,
Ex. 1 at 9. Similarly, Plaintiff claims that his general
manager, Kris Villager, defamed him, but provides no details
regarding Villager's allegedly defamatory statement, such
as whether the statement was published or whether Villager
knew the statement was false. Herron v. KING Broad.
Co., 112 Wash.2d 762, 768 (1989) (holding a defamation
action consists of four elements: (1) a false statement, (2)
publication, (3) fault, and (4) damages). Finally, most of
the facts alleged appear to relate to the failure of the
“Seattle Union” and the Washington Human Rights
Commission to investigate Plaintiff's concerns, neither
of which are parties to this action. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9-10.
Applying even the most liberal standard, Plaintiff's
allegations are largely incomprehensible and fail to state a
plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp, 550 U.S.
at 556. Dkt. # 1.
reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED and
Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement is
DENIED as moot. Dkt. # 7. Within
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order,
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an
amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff
files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable
claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under §
1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice.
Because the Court has given Plaintiff leave to amend his
Complaint, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is terminated as
moot. Dkt. # 12.