Storey v. Weyand

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 16, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05733
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 AMBERLYN STOREY, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05733-RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP STATUS 10 v. 11 CATHY WEYLAND and JENNIFER SECORD, 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Amberlyn Storey’s Motion for Leave to 15 Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1]. 16 A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 17 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A court has broad 18 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil 19 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 20 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in 21 forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action 22 is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 23 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint 24 1 is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 2 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 Here, Storey has limited income derived entirely from government assistance and has 4 made a sufficient showing of indigency to warrant IFP status. In addition, Storey’s allegations of 5 retaliatory eviction and discrimination do not appear facially frivolous or without merit.

6 Accordingly, Storey’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1] is GRANTED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 16th day of August, 2019. 9 A 10 Ronald B. Leighton 11 United States District Judge

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24