Peter C. Thurman v. John Phelan

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 8 — AT SEATTLE — 9 — 10 PETER C. THURMAN, CASE NO. C25-5984JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. — 12 — JOHN PHELAN, — 13 — Defendant. — 14 — 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Peter C. Thurman’s complaint, in which he 16 seeks “2012 backpay with 13 [years] interest and penalty” as well as a “retract[ion] of 17 [his] 2012 and 2013 termination.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 4) at 5.) The court is not aware of 18 any authority authorizing a plaintiff to file an employment lawsuit approximately a dozen 19 years after the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. Furthermore, Mr. Thurman 20 includes only very brief and bare-bones allegations that do not state on what basis he 21 believes he is entitled to backpay or a retraction. (See generally id.) Thus, his complaint 22 does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s requirement that a complaint contain 1 “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 3 A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) after giving the 4 plaintiff notice of its intent to dismiss and affording the plaintiff an opportunity to 5 respond. Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lee v. City of 6 Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 , 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)). The court is mindful that Mr. 7 Thurman is proceeding pro se, and therefore, it must construe his pleadings liberally. See 8 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant 9 must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See, e.g., Briones v. 10 Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). 11 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Mr. Thurman to SHOW CAUSE why this case 12 should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to meet 13 minimal pleading standards. Mr. Thurman shall either file a response to this order to 14 show cause or file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in this 15 order by no later than January 5, 2026. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to renote the 16 pending motion to appoint counsel (Mot. (Dkt. # 5)) for January 5, 2026. 17 Dated this 4th day of December, 2025. A — 18 — JAMES L. ROBART 19 United States District Judge — 20 — — 21 — — 22 —