From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Dea

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Oct 17, 2018
Case No. C18-0687-RSM-MAT (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. C18-0687-RSM-MAT

10-17-2018

CHRISTOPHER M. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. DEA, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

This is a pro se civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Christopher Taylor has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. Service has not been ordered. This Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and the balance of the record, concludes that plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted in this action. This Court therefore recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

DISCUSSION

On May 14, 2018, plaintiff submitted to the Court for filing a document which contained no title, but which the Court construed as a complaint. (Dkt. 6.) Plaintiff's pleading appeared to detail various misdeeds by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") in Seattle, Washington during an investigation which involved crystal meth, marijuana, and a software program, and which apparently led to plaintiff's current confinement. (See id.) Plaintiff alleged that the DEA had engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and bribery, and that the agency tampered with evidence. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also alleged that he had been verbally tortured, harassed, stalked, and wrongfully imprisoned by the DEA. (Id. at 1.) While plaintiff provided a fairly extensive "background" for his asserted claims, that background was largely incoherent. (See id. at 1-5.) Plaintiff requested $50 million in damages and asked that his complaint "be used as criminal charges if it can." (Id. at 5.)

After reviewing plaintiff's complaint, this Court determined that the complaint was deficient because it failed to comport with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) which requires that a pleading contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. The Court noted as well that plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint any facts which stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face. Accordingly, on July 6, 2018, this Court issued an Order directing plaintiff to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was advised therein that his failure to timely respond to the Order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has filed no response to the Order to Show Cause.

When a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint any claim upon which relief may be granted, and because he failed to respond in any fashion to the Order to Show Cause, this action should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that plaintiff's complaint and this action be dismissed with prejudice, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

OBJECTIONS

Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect the right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on November 9 , 2018 .

DATED this 17th day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Taylor v. Dea

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Oct 17, 2018
Case No. C18-0687-RSM-MAT (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2018)
Case details for

Taylor v. Dea

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER M. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. DEA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Date published: Oct 17, 2018

Citations

Case No. C18-0687-RSM-MAT (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2018)