Jones v. Tukwila City Hall

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01211
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 CORTEZ D. JONES, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01211-JHC 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 TUKWILLA CITY HALL, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Pro se Plaintiff, Cortez D. Jones, filed a complaint against Tukwilla City Hall alleging 15 “RCW connected unclaimed property, “Racketeering by City Hall in Tukwilla” and “Tukwilla 16 City Hall Discrimination against Cortez Jones matches Seattle City Hall plan to steal the damage 17 attorney bail from the claimant.” Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff’s IFP application has been referred to the undersigned United States 19 Magistrate Judge under General Order 11-22. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Generally, a party commencing a civil action in a United States District Court must pay a 22 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may permit an action to commence without 23 prepayment of fees and costs of security, by a person who submits an affidavit showing the 1 person cannot pay such fees or give security. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Thus, an action may 2 proceed without payment of the filing fee only if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP. See 3 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir.1999). Permission to proceed IFP is itself a 4 matter of privilege and not a right and the denial of IFP 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), cert. denied, 375 U.S 845 (1963). The Court has broad 7 discretion to grant or deny an IFP application. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 8 Cir.1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 600-601. Plaintiff avers in his IFP application he is employed, 9 takes home pay of $35,000.00 a month, has received in the last twelve months $324,000.00 in 10 rent, interest, or dividends, and $32,000 in public benefits. Plaintiff’s IFP application shows he 11 can afford to pay the filing fee. The Court thus recommends Plaintiff’s application to proceed 12 IFP be DENIED, and Plaintiff be directed to pay the usual filing fee within 30 days of the 13 District Court’s Order. If Petitioner fails to pay the filing fee, the Clerk should be directed to 14 close the file.

15 OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 16 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Plaintiff should not file a 17 notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until the assigned District Judge 18 enters a judgment in the case. Objections may be filed no later than August 28, 2023. The Clerk 19 shall note the matter for September 1, 2023, as ready for the District Judge’s consideration. 20 DATED this 14th day of August, 2023. 21 A 22 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 23