Chlentzos-Williams v. Burien District Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 29, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05563
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JANET CHLENTZOS-WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:21-cv-05563-RJB 7 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION DENYING BURIEN/KING COUNTY DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 9 COURT, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

10 Defendant. Noted for October 8, 2021 11

12 This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke pursuant to 13 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the Court 14 on plaintiff’s filing of an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1.1 Because 15 plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, it should be dismissed with leave to amend. In 16 the alternative, if the Court determines the complaint states a claim for relief, IFP status 17 should still be denied because plaintiff’s application indicates she has sufficient income 18 with which to pay the $400.00 filing fee. 19 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 20 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the Court 21 has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. 22 Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable 23

24 1 Plaintiff has also filed two other complaints and requests consolidation. 1 basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). A plaintiff 2 is not entitled to submit an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and 3 recommendation that IFP status should be denied. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 4 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Denial of a motion to proceed IFP is

5 an immediately appealable order. Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 Before the Court may dismiss the complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a 7 claim, though, the Court should normally give plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of his or 8 her complaint and allow plaintiff to amend the complaint prior to dismissal. Sparling v. 9 Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 10 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1987). On the other hand, leave to amend need not be granted 11 “where the amendment would be futile or where the amended complaint would be 12 subject to dismissal.” Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing 13 Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir.1990); Moore v. Kayport 14 Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1989)). Moreover, the court need not

15 grant endless amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to amend 16 may properly be denied for “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 17 previously allowed”). 18 In this case, plaintiff alleges the King County District Court in Burien, Washington 19 violated her civil rights. Dkt. 5, Amended Complaint. She asserts that monetary 20 damages should be awarded because the clerk of the King County District Court 21 refused to present four cases to the Judge of the District Court in Burien. Id. at 5. 22 Although King County may be sued for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 23 1983, to prove that a local government entity would be liable, a plaintiff must show the

24 1 local government entity itself violated their federal constitutional or statutory rights, or 2 that it directed its employee(s) to do so. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. 3 Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1994). A local governmental unit may not be held 4 responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory of liability.

5 See Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 6 The focus of a civil rights complaint against a local government entity is on the 7 “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated 8 by [the local government] Officers.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 121 9 (1988) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690). To sue a local governmental entity, a plaintiff 10 must allege facts showing that any constitutional deprivation they suffered was the 11 result of a custom or policy of the local governmental unit. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 12 at 121. Plaintiff would also need to show that a deliberate policy, custom, or practice of 13 the local government was the moving force behind the constitutional violation that 14 plaintiff suffered. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir. 2013).

15 Plaintiff’s complaint contains no such allegations against King County. Dkt. 5. 16 In the alternative, if the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint should not be 17 dismissed, she should be required to pay the filing fee. By requesting the court to 18 proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff is asking the government to incur the filing fee 19 because she allegedly is unable to afford the costs necessary to proceed with his cause 20 of action. 21 Plaintiff indicates she is receiving ongoing Social Security Disability Insurance 22 Benefits, and retirement benefits. Dkt 1, Application for IFP, at 1. 23

24 1 Because plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, this Court should deny IFP and 2 dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 5) with leave to amend. 3 In the alternative, because it is reasonable for plaintiff to incur the costs to 4 proceed with this cause of action, the undersigned recommends that if the Amended

5 Complaint is not dismissed, the Court should nevertheless deny the application to 6 proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the undersigned also recommends that the 7 Court order plaintiff to pay the required filing fee within thirty (30) days of the Court’s 8 order, if the Amended Complaint is not dismissed. 9 Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 10 directed set this matter for consideration on October 8, 2021, as noted in the caption.

11 Dated this 29th day of September, 2021. 12 13 A 14 Theresa L. Fricke 15 United States Magistrate Judge

16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24