Johnson v. King County Superior Court
2:25-cv-01533
| W.D. Wash. | Sep 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, previously had her complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) with leave to amend; she filed an amended complaint (Dkt. #66).
- Johnson alleges four claims: Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1962(c)); obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §§1503, 1512, 1519); whistleblower retaliation and ADA violations; and constitutional deprivations (First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments).
- Key factual allegations: a judge (named as Defendant Chun) dismissed a case while a predicate defendant was allegedly in default and allegedly blocked Johnson’s PACER access; Anthropic PBC allegedly used an AI product to label Johnson’s disclosures as psychiatric conditions; Defendants allegedly formed an enterprise to suppress filings and conceal misconduct.
- The court found the amended complaint conclusory and failing to meet Rule 8 and §1915(e)(2)(B) pleading standards; earlier orders had granted e-filing access and warned about pleading deficiencies.
- Several pending filings (Dkt. #61, 68, 69, 71) were ruled non‑motions or meritless; prior related federal suits involving state custody matters were dismissed under Younger abstention principles by other judges in the district.
- The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, denied the pending motions, declined to recuse despite Johnson naming the judge as a defendant, and warned about Johnson’s prior litigation conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint states a claim under §1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 8 | Johnson alleges RICO, obstruction, ADA, and constitutional claims based on judicial acts and alleged enterprise conduct | Allegations are conclusory, implausible, and fail to plead facts showing entitlement to relief | Dismissed under §1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 8 for failure to state a claim; dismissal with prejudice |
| Sufficiency of allegations against Anthropic (AI psychiatric labeling) to plead RICO/obstruction/ADA/wire fraud | Anthropic’s AI allegedly deployed psychiatric “smear injections” coordinating cross‑vendor suppression that harmed Johnson | Claims lack clear factual detail and are conclusory; do not plausibly allege predicate acts or enterprise | Allegations insufficiently plead actionable conduct; claims dismissed |
| Validity/form of filings titled as non‑requests (Dkts. 68, 69, 71) | Johnson treats these filings as mandatory directives or clerk’s motions rather than standard motions | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 requires a motion for court orders; filings are not proper motions | Court rejects filings as not meeting Rule 7; denies them |
| Federal interference with state custody proceedings / Younger abstention | Johnson seeks to reopen/vacate state custody proceedings and transfer child; asks federal relief affecting state case | Other district courts dismissed related claims invoking Younger abstention—federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state proceedings implicating important state interests | Court notes Younger-related rulings and denies relief that would interfere with state custody proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (§1915(e)(2)(B) screening applies to non‑prisoner IFP litigants)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (court need not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must not interfere with pending state prosecutions or certain state proceedings)
- Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano, 657 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of Younger abstention principles)
- Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1981) (filing suit against a judge does not automatically require disqualification)
- Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (1984) (revocation on other grounds; related to disqualification jurisprudence)