Anderson v. Trump

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05390
• Status: Unknown

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-05390-TMC 7 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION DONALD TRUMP, et al., 9 NOTED FOR JULY 29, 2025 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this matter. (Dkt. 1). The 12 Court issued an order to show cause after reviewing Plaintiff’s first IFP application 13 because the application was incomplete. Dkt. 5. The Court advised Plaintiff that failure 14 to comply with the Court’s Order may result in a Report and Recommendation to the 15 District Judge that denial of the IFP and/or dismissal of her case would be appropriate. 16 Dkt. 5. Plaintiff requested additional time to correct the deficiencies the Court identified 17 in her IFP application or to pay the $405.00 filing fee. Dkt. 6. The Court granted 18 Plaintiff’s motion and re-noted her IFP application to June 23, 2025. Dkt. 7. 19 Plaintiff has neither corrected the deficiencies in her IFP application nor paid the 20 $405 filing fee. 21 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of 22 a proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma 23 pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay 24 court fees and that the claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. 1 Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet 2 the first prong of this test, a litigant must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or 3 her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self 4 and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

5 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted). 6 After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s IFP application, the governing law, and 7 the balance of the record, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application (Dkt. 1) 8 should be DENIED and Plaintiff should be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee within 9 30 days of the date this Report and Recommendation is adopted. If no filing fee is paid, 10 the Clerk should be directed to close the case. A proposed order accompanies this 11 Report and Recommendation. 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 13 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for

15 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 16 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 17 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 18 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 19 directed to set the matter for consideration on July 29, 2025, as noted in the caption. 20 21 22 23

24 1 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable 2 Tiffany M. Cartwright. 3 4 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025.

5 6 A 7 Theresa L. Fricke 8 United States Magistrate Judge

9 10

11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24