# Green v. United States of America

> District Court, W.D. Washington · August 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10712513

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** August 12, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10712513

## Opinion text

HE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
9 JASON CONNER GREEN, CASE NO. C24-1140-JCC
10
Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER
11 v.
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
16 Coughenour, United States District Judge:
17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August 5, 2024, the Honorable
18 Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
19 proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 7) was entered shortly
20 thereafter. Plaintiff later amended that complaint (Dkt. No. 9) and moved for the appointment of
21 counsel (Dkt. No. 8) and for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 10).
22 Once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss it prior to service if it
23 “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); see Lopez v.
24 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must contain
25 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
26 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). The factual allegations must be “enough to raise a
1 right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
2 (2007). The complaint may be dismissed if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states insufficient
3 facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Zixiang v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013).
4 Here, Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
5 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In as much as the Court
6 can glean, he seeks relief for civil rights deprivations at the hands of various federal, state, and
7 local government actors. But Plaintiff’s allegations are not coherent. They fail to establish (a) the
8 relief sought, (b) the conduct supporting that relief, (c) the actor responsible for that conduct, (d)
9 and the legal theory supporting the relief sought. Each of these must be supported by specific
10 allegations—not formulaic conclusions or legal titles. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664. In addition,
11 claims against many of the defendants, at least as pleaded, are invalid.
12 For example, the United States is immune, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. Tobar
13 v. United States, 639 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor is a state, such as Washington (or its
14 employees if acting in their official capacity) a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Will v.
15 Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). And to the extent Plaintiff’s
16 allegations relate to the judicial process, even if well pleaded, judges have absolute immunity. In
17 re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). This extends to “[a]ll
18 those who perform judge-like functions.” Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 n.4 (9th Cir. 1985)
19 (citations omitted). Finally, qualified immunity “shields [government officials] from civil
20 damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly
21 established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800,
22 824 (9th Cir. 2013).
23 However, the Court will not dismiss a case unless “it is absolutely clear that no
24 amendment can cure the [complaint’s] defect[s].” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th
25 Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the
26 defects identified above no later than 21 days from the date this order is issued. If Plaintiff fails
1 to do so, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a
2 copy of this order to Plaintiff.
3 DATED this 12th day of August 2024.
Ravi Subramanian
4
Clerk of Court
5
s/Kathleen Albert
6 Deputy Clerk

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10712513. Public record. Not legal advice.