Williams v. Central Kitsap School District

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 26, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05571
• 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 LEKEISHA S. WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05571-RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff LeKeisha S. Williams’s Motion for 15 Leave to 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). The 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). The standard governing in forma pauperis eligibility 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” A person is 22 eligible if they are unable to pay the costs of filing and still provide the necessities of life. See 23 24 1 Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) 2 (internal quotations omitted). 3 The Court allows litigants to proceed in forma pauperis only when they have sufficiently 4 demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee. This generally includes incarcerated individuals 5 with no assets and persons who are unemployed and dependent on government assistance. See,

6 e.g., Ilagan v. McDonald, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79889, at *2 (D. Nev. June 16, 2016) (granting 7 petition based on unemployment and zero income); Reed v. Martinez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8 80629, at *1, 2015 WL 3821514 (D. Nev. June 19, 2015) (granting petition for incarcerated 9 individual on condition that applicant provides monthly payments towards filing fee). It does not 10 include those whose access to the court system is not blocked by their financial constraints, but 11 rather are in a position of having to weigh the financial constraints pursuing a case imposes. See 12 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 385, 388 (N.D. N.Y.), 13 aff’d, 865 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1988) (denying petition to proceed IFP because petitioner and his 14 wife had a combined annual income of between $34,000 and $37,000).

15 In addition, a court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 16 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 17 Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see 18 also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no 19 arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 20 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). A pro se Plaintiff’s 21 complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it must nevertheless contain 22 factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 23 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 24 1 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially 2 plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 3 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 4 Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint in order 5 to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.

6 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, 7 that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). 8 Williams is employed and makes $2,400 per month, has $200 in a savings account, and 9 has a 401k savings plan. She does not indicate whether she is married or has a partner with 10 additional income. She does state that she pays $500 per month on her three children and spends 11 $2,750 per month on gas, maintenance, toll fees, internet, car insurance, dental and health 12 insurance, personal items, and lawn maintenance. Finally, Williams states that she is undergoing 13 Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. 14 While Williams’s financial situation is precarious, the Court does not find that it meets

15 the requirements to obtain IFP status. Williams has a steady monthly salary and apparently has 16 sufficient disposable income to spend on non-essential items like lawn care. Williams’s Motion 17 is DENIED. She shall file pay the filing fee within thirty days of this Order. Failure to do so will 18 result in this case being DISMISSED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated this 26th day of June, 2020. 21 A 22 Ronald B. Leighton 23 United States District Judge