Klobas v. United States Gov't

• Docket Number: 3:23-CV-6128-BHS-DWC
• Decision Date: 20 December 2023
• Parties: KIMBERLY KLOBAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

1

KIMBERLY KLOBAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant.

No. 3:23-CV-6128-BHS-DWC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 20, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

David W. Christel, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

The District Court has referred Plaintiff Kimberly Klobas's pending Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed complaint to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel pursuant to Amended General Order 11-22. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. See Dkts. 1; 1-1.

In determining whether IFP should be granted in this case, the Court has reviewed the proposed complaint and finds the instant matter fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice and the Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 1) be denied.

Review of the Complaint.

Because Plaintiff filed this proposed complaint pro se, the Court has construed the pleadings liberally and has afforded Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988). In the proposed complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her boyfriend, Lance Raikoglo, is a targeted individual under investigation and she has been subjected to his ongoing investigation in a manner that she feels violated her civil rights. See Dkt. 1-1.

Sua Sponte Dismissal - Standard on Rule 12 (b).

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), a case may be dismissed for “(1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Under Fed.R.Civ.P 12b)(6), a federal court may dismiss a case sua sponte when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v. SeaLand Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). See also Mallard v. United States Dist Court, 490 U.S. 296, 30708 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). Plaintiff sues only the United States Government. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The federal government cannot be sued without its consent. United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289 (2009); see also Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 484 (2006). The proposed complaint does not properly identify a statutory cause of action in which Congress has waived sovereign immunity on behalf of the United States. Furthermore, the proposed complaint does not state how the United States has violated her rights or what actions have been taken that resulted in a constitutional violation. As such, Plaintiff has not stated a short and plain statement of a claim showing she is entitled to relief.

Leave to Amend.

Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995). The Court finds Plaintiff should not be afforded an opportunity to amend this action. She is attempting to sue the United States Government and, based on the conclusory allegations in the proposed complaint, cannot cure the deficiencies to state a viable claim against the United States. As such, the Court finds Plaintiff should not be afforded leave to amend her proposed complaint.

Decision on Application to Proceed IFP.

A district court may deny leave to proceed IFP at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998); ...