Lopez Estrada v. Department of Labor and Industries

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [7] CHRISTIAN RAUL LOPEZ ESTRADA, Case No. 3:23-cv-05354-TMC [8] Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING IN FORMA [9] PAUPERIS CASE v. [10] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND [11] INDUSTRIES, [12] Defendant. [14] This matter comes before the Court at the recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge [15] David Christel in his Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 8. On [16] March 21, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Christian Raul Lopez Estrada filed his complaint against [17] Defendant Department of Labor and Industries (the “Department”), Dkt. 1, 10, and on May 19, [18] 2023, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 7. The Court referred the [19] motion to Judge Christel, who granted Mr. Lopez Estrada’s application to proceed IFP but [20] recommended review of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) because “based on the [21] allegations in the proposed complaint, it does not appear Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim.” [22] Dkt 8. Having reviewed Mr. Lopez Estrada’s complaint and the balance of the record, the Court [24] 1 finds that he does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court 2 DISMISSES the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). 3 I. REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT Mr. Lopez Estrada alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 4 U.S.C. § 1331 . Dkt. 1 at 3. He asserts that he suffered a workplace injury requiring “treatment [5] and special care.” Id. at 5 . This injury presumably took place in Washington state while [6] Mr. Lopez Estrada held an H2A visa for temporary work. See id. at 4 (“I arrived with a federal [7] permit with the so-called H2A visa.”) Mr. Lopez Estrada does not specify which federal statutes, [8] treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution are at issue. He seeks the following [9] relief: “May my health recover as it was before the work accident and if the specialists say they [10] can’t do that, let them pay me the damage for labor compensation.” Id. at 6 . Mr. Lopez Estrada [11] has filed three letters to the Court regarding this case. Two letters (Dkt. 11, 13) are written in [12] Spanish, which the Court cannot review. See United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 56 (1st [13] Cir. 2002) (“It is clear, to the point of perfect transparency, that federal court proceedings must [14] be conducted in English.”). The first and third letters append medical, legal, and financial [15] documents related to his work injury and current circumstances. Dkt. 11, 15. [17] II. DISCUSSION The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a [18] proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). But the “privilege of pleading in forma [19] pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” [20] Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted). [21] Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case that is [23] “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks [24] 1 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); 2 see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1126–27 (9th Cir. 4 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua 5 sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim). 6 Unless it is clear a pro se plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of a complaint, the Court 7 will provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend the complaint to state a plausible claim. 8 See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without 9 leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not 10 be saved by any amendment.”). 11 Mr. Lopez Estrada’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 12 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. He names the Department as 13 defendant, but the Department cannot be sued by Mr. Lopez Estrada for damages in federal 14 court, see Dkt. 1 at 6 (“let them pay me the damage for labor compensation”), because it is a 15 state agency. See Pauline v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 773 F. Supp. 2d 914, 921 (D. 16 Haw. 2011 ) (citing Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 17 F.2d 1036 , 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)). “State agencies are immune from private suits for damages or 18 injunctive relief in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.” Id. 19 There are three exceptions to a state agency’s immunity from private lawsuits for 20 damages or injunctive relief: (1) if the agency waives its immunity, (2) if the United States 21 Congress, with constitutional authority, removes the agency’s immunity, or (3) if the relief 22 sought is for prospective relief. See id. 23 In this case, neither the Department nor Congress has waived the Department’s immunity 24 and Mr. Lopez Estrada seeks monetary damages for a past injury. See Dkt. 1 at 4–6. This means 1 none of the exceptions to the Department’s immunity from Mr. Lopez Estrada’s lawsuit apply 2 here, and he would be unable to cure the deficiency in his complaint with amendment. See 3 United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without 4 leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not 5 be saved by any amendment.”). The Court therefore finds that Mr. Lopez Estrada’s complaint 6 must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) because it fails to state a claim upon which 7 relief can be granted and seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 8 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice under 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Because any appeal would be frivolous, IFP status should be revoked if [10] Mr. Lopez Estrada chooses to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3); Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 11 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). [12] The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and [13] to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. [14] Dated this 4th day of January, 2024. [16] A [17] Tiffany M. Cartwright 18 United States District Court Judge