Melegh v. Does 1-10

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIELLA KATALIN MELEGH, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01535-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 JOHN DOES 1-10, 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Daniella Katalin 14 Melegh’s Complaint. Dkt. # 5. 15 A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (en banc). If a court determines that a complaint filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 18 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants immune from such 19 relief, the court must dismiss the case sua sponte. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To 20 adequately state a claim, a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim 21 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff need not 22 provide detailed factual allegations, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 23 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 1 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Still, when the 2 || plaintiffis pro se, a court must “construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the 3 benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brerz v. 4 || Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)). 5 Even under a liberal construction of the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for 6 ||Telief. The Complaint does not include any specific facts that show that Plaintiff is entitled to the 7 ||relief she seeks. The Complaint states only that the Defendants, named only as “John Does 1- 8 10” and described as “federal agents/Contractors,” have “engaged in warrantless surveillance, 9 including cameras in the bathroom, wiretapping, and interception of electronic communications.” 10 || Dkt. #5 at 1. There are no other factual allegations in the complamt. The complaint says it 11 claims relief under the Fourth Amendment via a Bivens action, but it does not identify any 12. || person acting under cover of law who allegedly committing the wiretapping. See Bivens v. Six 13 Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Nor does the complaint provide any 14 || details of the alleged surveillance beyond a bare allegation that it is occurring. 15 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. # 5, without prejudice 16 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(11).. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend, if she 17 || wishes, within 14 days of the filing of this Order. If Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint 1g || and it does not meet the pleading standards, the Court will dismiss the matter with prejudice. 19 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2026. otha Cbne 1 John H. Chun United States District Judge 22 23 24