Opinion
C23-0226-JCC
03-23-2023
WENDY L. HIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. THE POLYCLINIC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte pre-service section 1915(e)(2)(B) review of Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 1), which the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, granted (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff also filed an application for court-appointed counsel. (Dkt. No. 1.) Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a), the Court must review and dismiss before service the lawsuit of any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis if it 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).
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief 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). The complaint may be dismissed if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient facts to support one. Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Court holds pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than ones drafted by lawyers and liberally construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). When dismissing a complaint under § 1915(e), the Court gives pro se plaintiffs leave to amend unless the deficiencies of the complaint clearly could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1006 (9th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff alleges Defendants The Polyclinic, Dr. Frank Isik, and Chad Beck violated her Due Process rights. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) She further alleges that Defendants lied in court filings, signed fraudulent documents, harassed Plaintiff, threatened Plaintiff with a lawsuit, and threatened to “take any present and[/or] future settlements [she] may get.” (Id.) She alleges that these events occurred during a prior 2019 District Court proceeding and a King County small claims court proceeding. (See id.)
However, Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants violated her Due Process rights. In fact, Plaintiff fails to put forth any legal theory, let alone a cognizable one. Instead, she makes cursory allegations, followed by 23 pages of exhibits, which include an unsent letter to the judge who oversaw the small claims court proceeding (see Dkt. No. 5 at 2), communications related to the small claims court case, and documents from the District Court case. Because Plaintiff states no claim for relief, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice.Moreover, because the complaint is dismissed, Plaintiff's request for court appointed counsel (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED as moot.
Because Plaintiff fails to state any claim for relief, it is clear that providing leave to amend would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted)