Petrozzi v. Inslee

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TIMOTHY ROBERT PETROZZI, CASE NO. C20-6000BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 JAY INSLEE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Timothy Petrozzi’s Motion 14 for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 95. This filing is Petrozzi’s seventy-eighth 15 proposed civil rights complaint. Dkts. 6–81, 88, and 95. 16 This Court previously determined that Petrozzi is a serial filer of frivolous 17 complaints. Dkt. 5. It issued a Bar Order requiring him to make an affirmative initial 18 showing—under penalty of perjury—that he seeks to litigate new claims not present in 19 his earlier filings. Id. If he asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, he is required to demonstrate 20 in the first instance that he is in “imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.” Id. 21 He has again failed to make the required showings. 22 1 Petrozzi’s latest proposed complaint again names President Biden, Governor 2 Inslee, and Attorney General Ferguson (as well as Mayor Selby of Olympia, Washington) 3 as Defendants. This proposed complaint seeks $12,000,000,000 based on “genocide” and

4 the “unlawful practice of medicine” based on vaccine mandates, which he claims “is 5 killing 1000’s of citizens.” Dkt. 95-1 at 6. 6 Even absent a bar order, a court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 7 at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is 8 frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th

9 Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma 10 pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Tripati, 11 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. 12 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)). 13 Like his earlier filings, Petrozzi’s most recent proposed complaint is nonsensical,

14 and it is frivolous as a matter of law. It does not meet the in forma pauperis standard, and 15 it does not meet the standard set in the Bar Order. The Motion for leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis, Dkt. 95, is DENIED, and his proposed complaint is DISMISSED with 17 prejudice. 18 \

19 \ 20 \ 21 \ 22 \ 1 The Clerk shall terminate any other pending motions. No Judgment shall be 2 entered (because any future proposed claims will be opened in this case), but this Order 3 terminating this proposed action is final and appealable.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 31st day of August, 2021. A 6 7 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22