Zayas v. City of Seattle, 2:24-cv-01613

Plaintiff Myriam Zayas filed suit against the City of Seattle and others, relating to her adult son’s death.
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and filed her initial complaint.
The Court found the original complaint did not establish standing or state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ordered Zayas to amend.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which mostly repeated prior arguments and failed to address the Court’s directions, particularly regarding standing and factual support for her claims.
The Court reviewed the amended complaint sua sponte and found it still deficient under federal pleading standards (Rule 8, Rule 12(h)(3)), and lacking subject matter jurisdiction and a valid claim for relief.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and further leave to amend was denied due to futility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to Sue for Son’s Death	Zayas asserts right to litigate son’s death	Not provided	Zayas lacks standing; injury not established
Sufficient Federal Claim (§ 1983)	Alleges rights violations under § 1983	Not provided	No plausible § 1983 claim stated
Identification of Violator	Alleges misconduct generally	Not provided	No specific person identified
Pleading Standard Compliance	Amended, added arguments	Not provided	Fails Rule 8; lacks facts or legal theory

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (describes constitutional standing requirements for federal court)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (injury for standing must be actual or imminent)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state facially plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must include enough facts to raise claim above speculative level)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)