The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
AT SEATTLE
9
10 STROUD: LASHONNE-LETIA, Sui Juris, NO. 2:25-cv-00128-JHC
11 Plaintiff, ORDER
12 vs.
13
ENGJELLUSH KLOSI, SERGEANT ERIC
14 FOURNIER, and Does 1-10, whose identities
are presently unknown,
15
16 Defendants.
17
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Eric Fournier’s FRCP 12(b)(6)
18
19 Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 14; and pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Fournier’s
20 Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 19, Motion to Compel Discovery and Disclosure of Evidence Under
21
Federal and Constitutional Law, Dkt. # 30, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Emergency
22
Injunctive Relief, and Demand for Immediate Judicial Intervention, Dkt. # 34, Motion for
23
Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Equitable Relief, Dkt. # 35, and Motion for Protective
24
25 Order and Emergency Relief, Dkt. # 36. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the
26
motion to dismiss without prejudice, GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, and
1
DENIES the remaining motions.
2
3 Fournier’s Motion to Dismiss & Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
4 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for
5
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A motion to dismiss under this rule
6
“tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–
7
42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). In
8
9 considering such a motion, a court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and
10 construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St.
11
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and
12
quotation omitted). But the complaint must contain more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
13
elements of a cause of action” and “mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
14
15 662, 678 (2009). It “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
16 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
17
(2007)).
18
This matter appears to arise out of unlawful detainer proceedings against Plaintiff. See
19
Dkt. # 1. Sergeant Fournier contends that the only allegation against him is that he carried out
20
21 a writ of execution. Dkt. # 14 at 1. He thus argues that both quasi-judicial and qualified
22 immunity bar the claims against him. Id. at 1–5. But the complaint is unclear. It does not
23 clearly allege that Fournier executed a writ of execution–though that may be a reasonable
24
inference from the allegations and attachments. The pleading provides little in the way of
25
factual allegations, stating, “Despite Plaintiff’s motions for a stay, Defendants forcibly
26
removed Plaintiff’s belongings, commenced demolition, and left property exposed to the
1
elements on 1/14/2024.” Dkt. # 1 at 2. But it does not say whether the requested stay was
2
3 ordered by any court. Nor does it explain in any way how Defendant Fournier’s conduct was
4 unlawful in light of the Writ of Restitution in the unlawful detainer matter. Id. at 134–35.
5
Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim against Sergeant Fournier.
6
Plaintiff’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 19, lacks merit. As argued by
7
Fournier, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) requires that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be
8
9 made before answering a complaint. See Dkt. # 39.
10 Plaintiff’s Remaining Motions
11
Plaintiff’s remaining motions also lack merit.
12
The motion to compel discovery, Dkt. # 30, is procedurally flawed. Among other
13
things, the motion does not include a certification of compliance with the good faith
14
15 conference/attempt to confer requirement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); LCR 37(a)(1).
16 Plaintiff’s motions at Dkt. ## 34, 35, and 36, essentially seek to have the Court undo
17
the Writ of Restitution and give her access to the property at issue. Plaintiff fails to present
18
law and facts to justify such extraordinary relief. Moreover, this Court does not have
19
jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of a state court’s decision, regardless of whether the appeal
20
21 is express or implied. Hooper v. Brnovich, 56 F.4th 619, 624 (9th Cir. 2022).
22 Conclusion
23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Fournier’s motion, Dkt. #
24
14, and DISMISSES the claims against him without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff
25
leave until May 16, 2025, to file an amended complaint if she wishes; such leave is limited to
26
the claims against Defendant Fournier. The Court recommends that, before seeking to amend
> | her complaint, Plaintiff review the authorities cited by Defendant Fournier regarding quasi-
3 | judicial and qualified immunity. Dkt. # 14 at 3-4.
4 And the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions at Dkt. ## 19, 30, 34, 35, and 36.
° DATED this 2nd day of May, 2025.
6
ch. 4 Chur
ab ho A. Chun
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
” ORDER - 4
(USDC C25-128-JHC)