José Ascencio-Zetino v. Bruce Scott et al.

W.D. Washington

José Ascencio-Zetino v. Bruce Scott et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided August 12, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-02856·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOSE ASCENCIO-ZETINO, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-02856-DGE Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 1) BRUCE SCOTT et al., Respondents.

Petitioner José Ascencio-Zetino has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may permit an indigent litigant to proceed IFP if the litigant submits an affidavit that declares all assets, the nature of the action, and an entitlement to redress. “[A]n affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks removed). “This generally includes incarcerated individuals with no assets and persons who are unemployed and dependent on government assistance.” Portillo v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. C21- 5312BHS, 2021 WL 3015201, *1 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2021). A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). Petitioner’s IFP application establishes his indigency. He is currently detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (see Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1–2) and appears to have limited funds available to afford the filing fee (Dkt. No. 1). The action, a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging (1) the constitutional adequacy of the bond hearing he received and (2) the denial of his Due Process rights, does not appear to be frivolous or clearly without merit. See Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1369; (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3). Accordingly, Petitioner’s IFP application (Dkt. No. 1) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s office shall issue the Court’s standard scheduling order for habeas corpus cases. The Clerk is further

directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 12th day of August 2026. a David G. Estudillo United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOSE ASCENCIO-ZETINO, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-02856-DGE Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 1) BRUCE SCOTT et al., Respondents.

Petitioner José Ascencio-Zetino has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may permit an indigent litigant to proceed IFP if the litigant submits an affidavit that declares all assets, the nature of the action, and an entitlement to redress. “[A]n affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks removed). “This generally includes incarcerated individuals with no assets and persons who are unemployed and dependent on government assistance.” Portillo v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. C21- 5312BHS, 2021 WL 3015201, *1 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2021). A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). Petitioner’s IFP application establishes his indigency. He is currently detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (see Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1–2) and appears to have limited funds available to afford the filing fee (Dkt. No. 1). The action, a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging (1) the constitutional adequacy of the bond hearing he received and (2) the denial of his Due Process rights, does not appear to be frivolous or clearly without merit. See Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1369; (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3). Accordingly, Petitioner’s IFP application (Dkt. No. 1) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s office shall issue the Court’s standard scheduling order for habeas corpus cases. The Clerk is further

directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 12th day of August 2026. a David G. Estudillo United States District Judge

José Ascencio-Zetino v. Bruce Scott et al., (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

José Ascencio-Zetino v. Bruce Scott et al. (José Ascencio-Zetino v. Bruce Scott et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related