Anderson v. Bishop Loverde

W.D. Washington

Anderson v. Bishop Loverde

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05480

StatusUnknown

This text of Anderson v. Bishop Loverde (Anderson v. Bishop Loverde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Bishop Loverde, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 RUTH MARIE ANDERSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-05480-TMC 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 BISHOP LOVERDE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 The District Court has referred Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (IFP) to United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Dkt. 1. 13 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of 14 a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad discretion 15 in denying an application to proceed IFP. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 16 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is insufficient to determine if Plaintiff is 18 unable to pay the $405 filing fee. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff did not fill out the following inquires in 19 the IFP application: (1) her total amount of net monthly salary; (2) the amount of cash 20 she has and funds in her checking and savings account; (3) whether either she or her 21 spouse owns or has any interest in any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, retirement 22 plans, automobiles or other valuable property, and if so, what the approximate value of 23 those assets are; (4) whether any persons are dependent on her or her spouse; and (5) 24 1 the monthly expenses she incurs, such has housing, transportation, utilities, or loan 2 payments. 3 Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. Plaintiff’s IFP application does not 4 comply with the statutory criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b).

5 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff Ruth Marie Anderson to file a revised IFP 6 application and complete the information that is needed (“show cause”) on or before 7 June 24, 2025. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to comply with this order may 8 result in a report and recommendation to the District Judge that denial of IFP and/or 9 dismissal would be appropriate. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to 10 Plaintiff and a blank IFP application form. 11 12 13 Dated this 4th day of June, 2025. 14 15 16 A

Theresa L. Fricke 17 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 RUTH MARIE ANDERSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-05480-TMC 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 BISHOP LOVERDE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 The District Court has referred Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (IFP) to United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Dkt. 1. 13 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of 14 a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad discretion 15 in denying an application to proceed IFP. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 16 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is insufficient to determine if Plaintiff is 18 unable to pay the $405 filing fee. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff did not fill out the following inquires in 19 the IFP application: (1) her total amount of net monthly salary; (2) the amount of cash 20 she has and funds in her checking and savings account; (3) whether either she or her 21 spouse owns or has any interest in any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, retirement 22 plans, automobiles or other valuable property, and if so, what the approximate value of 23 those assets are; (4) whether any persons are dependent on her or her spouse; and (5) 24 1 the monthly expenses she incurs, such has housing, transportation, utilities, or loan 2 payments. 3 Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. Plaintiff’s IFP application does not 4 comply with the statutory criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b).

5 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff Ruth Marie Anderson to file a revised IFP 6 application and complete the information that is needed (“show cause”) on or before 7 June 24, 2025. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to comply with this order may 8 result in a report and recommendation to the District Judge that denial of IFP and/or 9 dismissal would be appropriate. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to 10 Plaintiff and a blank IFP application form. 11 12 13 Dated this 4th day of June, 2025. 14 15 16 A

Theresa L. Fricke 17 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anderson v. Bishop Loverde, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-bishop-loverde-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack