The opinion
1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Oct 21, 2025
3
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 ANTHONY MALLGREN, No. 2:25-CV-00226-RLP
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
9 v.
10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
11
12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Mallgren’s Complaint. ECF No. 1. Mr.
13 Mallgren appears pro se. Id. By separate Order the Court granted Mr. Mallgren
14 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. Mr. Mallgren has not effectuated
15 service.
16 LEGAL STANDARD
17 A plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject
18 to sua spone review of his or her complaint, and mandatory dismissal, if the
19 complaint is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state claim upon which relief may be
20 granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” See
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537-38, 135 S.Ct.
2 1759 (2015); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
3 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in
4 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”)
5 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that a plaintiff is
6 entitled to relief, FRCP 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief
7 that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127
8 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations,
9 but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129
10 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the
11 mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The
12 complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan
13 Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must
14 state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to
15 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en
16 banc) (citations omitted).
17 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
18 in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989), superseded
19 by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27
20 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.
1 1984). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on
2 an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly
3 baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327
4 ANALYSIS
5 Mr. Mallgren’s Complaint is deficient in multiple respects.
6 First, the background section consists of merely two sentences: one stating
7 that Mr. Mallgren is stuck in Spokane, and another referencing his involvement in
8 similar proceedings elsewhere. The Complaint then requests that all cases be
9 transferred to this district. The Complaint thus fails to provide any factual basis
10 upon which a claim could rely.
11 Second, the Complaint fails to establish any logical connection between the
12 alleged facts and the named defendant. The is no articulation of how the
13 Government’s conduct relates to Mr. Mallgren’s grievances. Similarly, the
14 requested relief bears no discernable relationship to any facts pleaded in the
15 Complaint. The pleading does not explain why transfer of other cases would be
16 appropriate or how such relief would redress an injury Mr. Mallgren may have
17 suffered.
18 Complicating matters further, there is another case currently pending before
19 this court initiated by Mr. Mallgren against the United States Government. See
20 Mallgren v. United States, et al, No. 2:25-CV-00228-RLP (E.D. Wash. 2025).
1|| Permitting Mr. Mallgren to amend his complaint would raise duplicative litigation,
2|| with two cases proceeding simultaneously on potentially overlapping claims.
Amendment would thus be futile. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also Adams v.
4|| California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on
5|| other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161 (2008)
6|| (“Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the
enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive
8 || disposition of litigation.””’).
9 Given these circumstances, dismissal is warranted. The Complaint fails to
10]| state a claim due to its incoherence and lack of factual support, and the existence of
11]| the parallel proceeding makes amendment an inappropriate remedy.
12 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
13 1. Mr. Mallgren’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND.
15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and
16|| Judgment accordingly, provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address and
CLOSE the file.
18 DATED October 21, 2025.
1
20 ~ REBECCA L.PENNELL |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORNER OE DICMICCAT * 4