Lay v. Olson, 3:25-cv-05122

Plaintiff Scott T. Lay filed a federal lawsuit against the Estate of Michael David Olsen and others, alleging improprieties in the sale of property in Washington state involving an unlicensed mortgage broker.
Lay moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Upon screening the complaint, the Court found it failed to state a claim and ordered Lay to show cause or amend his complaint by April 15, 2025.
Lay did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause or amend.
Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke recommended the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute	No response provided (Lay failed to respond to order).	Not stated; defendants not served.	Dismissal warranted for non-prosecution.
Sufficiency of Pleading	Asserts violations of state/federal law by defendants.	Not stated; defendants not served.	Insufficient facts; fails to state claim.
Eligibility for IFP	Seeks to proceed without prepaying fees.	Not stated; defendants not served.	IFP request denied due to inadequate claim.
Leave to Amend Complaint	Did not submit any amendment or respond to court order.	Not stated; defendants not served.	No further leave due to futility.

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizes court's inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (pleading must provide fair notice of the claim and its grounds)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must raise a right to relief above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead facts showing a plausible claim for relief)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable legal/factual basis)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (court must liberally construe pro se complaints)