Markham v. United States Department of the Army

W.D. Washington

Markham v. United States Department of the Army

DecidedApril 1, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05212

StatusUnknown

This text of Markham v. United States Department of the Army (Markham v. United States Department of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Markham v. United States Department of the Army, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN W. MARKHAM, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05212-BHS 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 13 THE ARMY, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 The District Court has referred Plaintiff John W. Markham’s pending Application to 16 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and Proposed Complaint to United States Magistrate Judge 17 Grady J. Leupold pursuant to Amended General Order 05-25. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed 18 a Proposed Complaint and IFP Application, that is, to proceed without paying the filing fee for a 19 civil case. See Dkts. 1, 1-1; 4, 4-1. 20 Standard for Granting Application for IFP. The district court may permit indigent 21 litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. 22 §1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed IFP. 23 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). 24 1 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff states that he is currently employed 2 with a net monthly salary of $1,500.00. Dkt. 4 at 1. In the past twelve months, Plaintiff has also 3 received $8,000.00 additional income from rent, interest or dividends. Id. Plaintiff has no cash on 4 hand, but $29,000.00 in a checking account and $6,000.00 in a savings account. Id. at 2. He

5 owns property, including a home with his sister and a vehicle, with a total value of $190,000.00. 6 Id. His monthly expenses amount to $1,900.00. Id. 7 Because it appears that Plaintiff may have funds sufficient to pay the $405.00 filing fee, 8 he should do so or provide the Court with an explanation of why he cannot. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 • Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE why his IFP Application should not be 11 denied on or before May 1, 2025. In the alternative, Plaintiff may pay the $405.00 filing fee 12 before that date. Failure to show cause or pay the amount shall be deemed a failure to properly 13 prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend DISMISSAL of this case. 14 • The Clerk of Court is directed to RENOTE Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP

15 (Dkt. 4) for consideration on May 1, 2025. 16 Dated this 1st day of April, 2025. 17 A 18 19 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN W. MARKHAM, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05212-BHS 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 13 THE ARMY, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 The District Court has referred Plaintiff John W. Markham’s pending Application to 16 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and Proposed Complaint to United States Magistrate Judge 17 Grady J. Leupold pursuant to Amended General Order 05-25. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed 18 a Proposed Complaint and IFP Application, that is, to proceed without paying the filing fee for a 19 civil case. See Dkts. 1, 1-1; 4, 4-1. 20 Standard for Granting Application for IFP. The district court may permit indigent 21 litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. 22 §1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed IFP. 23 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). 24 1 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff states that he is currently employed 2 with a net monthly salary of $1,500.00. Dkt. 4 at 1. In the past twelve months, Plaintiff has also 3 received $8,000.00 additional income from rent, interest or dividends. Id. Plaintiff has no cash on 4 hand, but $29,000.00 in a checking account and $6,000.00 in a savings account. Id. at 2. He

5 owns property, including a home with his sister and a vehicle, with a total value of $190,000.00. 6 Id. His monthly expenses amount to $1,900.00. Id. 7 Because it appears that Plaintiff may have funds sufficient to pay the $405.00 filing fee, 8 he should do so or provide the Court with an explanation of why he cannot. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 • Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE why his IFP Application should not be 11 denied on or before May 1, 2025. In the alternative, Plaintiff may pay the $405.00 filing fee 12 before that date. Failure to show cause or pay the amount shall be deemed a failure to properly 13 prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend DISMISSAL of this case. 14 • The Clerk of Court is directed to RENOTE Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP

15 (Dkt. 4) for consideration on May 1, 2025. 16 Dated this 1st day of April, 2025. 17 A 18 19 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Markham v. United States Department of the Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markham-v-united-states-department-of-the-army-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack