The opinion
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
9 MAURICE ANTHONY BROWN, CASE NO. C23-0835-JCC
10
Plaintiff, ORDER
11
v.
12
MATTHEW MURPHY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16 This matter comes before the Court upon pre-service review of Plaintiff’s in forma
17 pauperis (“IFP”) complaint (Dkt. No. 5). The Court previously identified a number of defects in
18
the complaint, and it ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint within 14 days, stating
19
plausible claims for relief. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff failed to do so.
20
The Court must dismiss a complaint prior to service if it “fails to state a claim on which
21
relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129
22
23 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
24 claim for relief that is plausible on its face to avoid dismissal. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
25
664 (2009). The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the
26
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Here, as previously noted, Plaintiff’s claims of false testimony fail as a matter of law.
1
2 (Dkt. No. 9 at 2.) And Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants are not entitled to qualified
3 immunity based on a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (See Id. at 2–3.)
4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) without prejudice.
5
Additionally, Plaintiff’s outstanding motions (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 8) are DISMISSED as moot.
6
DATED this 18th day of July 2023.
7
A
8
9
10
John C. Coughenour
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26