Jama v. King County Police

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 MAHAMED ALI JAMA, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01151 JCC-BAT 8 v. REPORT AND KING COUNTY POLICE, WESTERN 11 Defendants.

12 On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff Mahamed Ali Jama filed a Declaration and Application to 13 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s IFP 14 Application was deficient as he had failed to properly complete portions of his Application. The 15 Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the additional information by September 20, 2021 so that the 16 Court may determine whether to grant or deny his IFP Application. Dkt. 4. Plaintiff failed to 17 respond. 19 As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United 20 States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may authorize the 21 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a 22 person who submits an affidavit that ... the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 23 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay 1 the filing fee only if leave to proceed IFP is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 2 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir.1999). 3 The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of 4 privilege and not a right; denial of an informa pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s

5 right to due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Weller v. 6 Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1963)). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant 7 or deny a motion to proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990); Weller, 8 314 F.2d at 600-601. 10 By filing a request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is asking the government to incur the filing 11 fee because he allegedly is unable to afford the costs necessary to proceed with his complaint. 12 However, Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete and although he was given an opportunity to 13 provide additional information in support, he has failed to respond to the Court’ Order. 14 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny his IFP application (Dkt. 1) and

15 that Plaintiff be directed to pay the filing fee. A proposed order is attached. 16 Objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than 17 October 8, 2021, and the clerk shall note the matter ready for the Court’s consideration on 18 October 11, 2021. Objections shall not exceed five (5) pages. The failure to timely object may 19 affect the right to appeal. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 20 DATED this 23rd day of September, 2021. A 21 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23