Ravines de Schur v. Bellingham & Whatcom County Housing Authorities, 2:23-cv-00332-RAJ

Background

Pro se plaintiff Ana Maria Ravines de Schur filed a 59‑page complaint and IFP application alleging rights violations by multiple defendants including Bellingham Housing Authority, Whatcom County Housing Authority, several shelters, Bellingham Police Department, and the Asian Association of Utah.
Allegations included failure to transfer her belongings from Utah to Washington, harassment and eviction from a shelter called “Base Camp,” delay or refusal to assist with a housing voucher transfer, and a broad claim of a Mormon theocracy influencing outcomes.
The magistrate judge granted IFP and recommended review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of frivolous or legally deficient in forma pauperis complaints.
The district court reviewed the complaint under the Rule 12(b)(6)/§ 1915(e)(2)(B) standard, construing pro se allegations liberally but accepting only plausible factual allegations.
The court found the pleadings legally inadequate—conclusory conspiracy/theocracy claims and generalized allegations failed to state a plausible claim under the Federal Rules—and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
The court gave the plaintiff 21 days to file an amended complaint that states jurisdiction, grounds for relief, and a specific demand; failure to cure will result in dismissal with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)/Rule 12(b)(6)	Plaintiff alleges multiple rights violations, conspiracy by religious actors, and failures to assist with housing and property transfer	Defendants implicitly contend claims are legally deficient and lack factual support (grounds for dismissal under § 1915)	Court: Complaint fails to state a plausible claim; dismissal warranted under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(b)(6) standard
Whether pro se status relaxes pleading requirements enough to save the complaint	Pro se plaintiff relies on liberal construction of pleadings to allow claims to proceed	Defendants rely on strict application of Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard despite pro se status	Court: Pro se status does not relieve obligation to meet Rule 8/Twombly plausibility; liberal construction applies but cannot cure conclusory, implausible claims
Sufficiency of broad conspiracy/theocracy allegations	Plaintiff alleges a theocratic conspiracy by Mormon actors influenced defendants’ conduct	Defendants (and court) treat such broad allegations as conclusory and unsupported by facts	Court: Broad conspiracy/theocracy claims are insufficiently pled and implausible; do not state a claim
Relief and next steps after dismissal	Plaintiff seeks specific relief (voucher transfer, addition of family members, property transfer)	Defendants argue procedural dismissal appropriate; remedy is dismissal with leave to amend or dismissal with prejudice if not cured	Court: Dismissal without prejudice with 21 days to amend; failure to timely amend will result in dismissal with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915(e) standard applies to all IFP complaints and pro se plaintiffs receive liberal pleading construction)
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (frivolous complaint lacks any basis in law or fact)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 8)
Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts assume factual allegations are true when assessing Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints must still meet procedural pleading requirements)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (district courts must liberally construe pro se filings but may dismiss deficient claims)
Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2008) (pro se litigants are given leeway but must follow the Federal Rules)