From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arden v. City of Long Beach

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 18, 2023
No. C23-5195-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 18, 2023)

Opinion

C23-5195-JCC

07-18-2023

CANDACE MARIE ARDEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on pre-service review of Plaintiff Candace Marie Arden's amended in forma pauperis (“IFP”) complaint (Dkt. No. 14). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court must review and dismiss before service the lawsuit of any person proceeding IFP if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff previously submitted an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11), which the Court dismissed because Plaintiff did not state any specific legal claims upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 13.) However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. (Id. at 2.)

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That being said, the Court holds pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers and liberally construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).

Plaintiff's new complaint again fails to state any specific legal claims upon which relief can be granted. (See generally Dkt. No. 14.) Instead, it contains a list of Defendants followed by a series of supporting documents provided with no context. (Id.) Because the amended complaint fails to state any plausible claims, the Court DISMISSES it without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED, as Plaintiff has already submitted an amended complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case and send a copy of this order to Plaintiff.


Summaries of

Arden v. City of Long Beach

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 18, 2023
No. C23-5195-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 18, 2023)
Case details for

Arden v. City of Long Beach

Case Details

Full title:CANDACE MARIE ARDEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jul 18, 2023

Citations

No. C23-5195-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 18, 2023)