Barnes v. Kent Courthouse

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01445
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DARENE BARNES, CASE NO. 21-CV-01445-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 KENT COURTHOUSE, et al, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 17 Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 6, and Plaintiff Darene 18 Barnes’ objections to the R&R. Dkt. No. 7. Judge Tsuchida recommended that the Court deny 19 Barnes’ application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and direct her to pay the filing fee. Dkt. 20 No 6 at 2. Having reviewed the R&R, Barnes’ objections, and the remainder of the record, the 21 Court ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES Barnes’ IFP application. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Barnes initiated this suit pro se by filing an incomplete IFP application. See Dkt. No. 1. 24 The Clerk of Court mailed notice of this filing deficiency and informed Barnes of the deadline 1 for submitting a properly completed application. Dkt. No. 3. Barnes thereafter failed to submit a 2 complete application. Instead, she mailed the Court a handwritten note explaining that her name 3 was misspelled in court correspondence. Dkt. No. 4. Judge Tsuchida accordingly recommended 4 denying her IFP application. Dkt. No. 6 at 2.

5 DISCUSSION 6 A district court may permit a civil litigant to proceed IFP—that is, without first paying 7 the filing fee—when the person submits “an affidavit that . . . [she] is unable to pay such fees or 8 give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992). 9 But proceeding IFP “is a privilege not a right,” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 10 1965), and such an action may go forward only if the Court grants the IFP application, Rodriguez 11 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court wields “particularly broad discretion” 12 to grant or deny IFP status. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 Barnes’ failure to submit a properly completed application precludes IFP status. See LCR 14 3(c)(1) (“At the time application is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . [a] plaintiff shall . . .

15 [c]omplete the in forma pauperis application approved for use in this district for the specific type 16 of case[.]”). Nor do Barnes’ “objections”—an unintelligible list of words and phrases—change 17 this result. See Dkt. No. 7. 18 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee within 14 days of the 19 date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to pay this fee, the Clerk is directed to close this matter. 20 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff’s last known address. 21 Dated this 24th day of January, 2022. 22 A 23 Lauren King United States District Judge 24