2:25-mc-00019
W.D. Wash.
May 16, 2025
Case Information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, CASE NO. 25-mc-00019-JHC ORDER Plaintiff, v.

JOSEPH STANELY PIGOTT,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se petitioner Joseph Stanley Pigott’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (IFP), Dkt. No. 1, and his pleading entitled, “Defendant’s Notice of Removal and Complaint for False Imprisonment by Judge Johanna Bender, Lisa Manion Prosecuting Attorney, Camile Eatwell Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Judge David S. Keenan, Steven John Adams Supervisor for (S.C.R.A.P.) WSBA# 32566 Under Rule 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1455 (Federal Question).” Dkt. # 1-1. Pigott, who identifies himself as King Abdul Mumin El, lists himself as Defendant and the State of Washington as Plaintiff. Id. He appears to seek the removal of a pending criminal case in King County Superior Court to federal district court. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 1 subject to screening, and a court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Every complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff does not need to provide detailed factual allegations, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Still, where the plaintiff is pro se, courts “construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)).

Even construing Pigott’s claims liberally, he fails to state a claim. As another court in this District has explained to him, he does not meet the requirements to remove the criminal proceedings in King County Superior Court to federal court. Case No. 23-mc-00092-LK, ECF No. 4 at 3–4. His other pleadings similarly do not appear to state a claim under Rule 8 because, among other reasons, he fails to state the relief that he seeks and he does not identify a statute or Constitutional provision that has been violated. Dkt. # 1-1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. [1] The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. # 1, is STRICKEN as moot. The Clerk of the Court 20 shall provide a copy of this order to Pigott. 21

22

23

Dated this 16th day of May, 2025.

John H. Chun United States District Judge

Notes

[1] “Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.” Lopez v. Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

Read the detailed case summary