Smith v. Wolfe

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 JASON SMITH, CASE NO. C19-6187RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Smith’s amended proposed complaint, 15 filed in support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court initially denied 16 Smith’s Motion, because he did not state a plausible claim. Smith’s revised effort does not 17 address the shortcomings; it explains that he is “not accustomed” to the standard against which 18 this Court must measure a proposed complaint before it will permit a pro se plaintiff to 19 commence a lawsuit without paying the filing fee. 20 A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 21 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad 22 23 24 1 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil 2 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th 3 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed 4 in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the 5 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369

6 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis 7 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. 8 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 9 1984). 10 A pro se Plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it 11 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for 12 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 13 U.S. 544, 570, (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual 14 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

15 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 16 Smith has not met this standard, whether he is familiar with it or not. He must articulate 17 the “who what when where and why” of a story that, if true, would entitle him to some relief in 18 this court. The current filings do not leave the court or the defendants with any information about 19 what he is suing about, or why he is doing so in this court. The Motion for leave to proceed in 20 21 22 23 24 1 forma pauperis is DENIED. Smith shall pay the filing fee or file proposed amended complaint 2 within 21 days, or this matter will be dismissed without further notice. 4 Dated this 9th day of March, 2020. 5 A

6 Ronald B. Leighton 7 United States District Judge

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24