Hanson v. State of Washington

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and giving plaintiff until March 6, 2012 to pay filing fee.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 LEIF HANSON, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 CASE NO. C11-6038BHS v. WASHINGTON STATE, Defendant. 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 14 15 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Leif Hanson’s (“Hanson”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. On December 21, 2011, Hanson filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a 19 proposed complaint. Dkt. 1. Hanson seeks a ruling that the “Washington State 20 Department of Early Learning licensing requirement” that prevents sex discrimination in 21 hiring is unconstitutional because it violates Hanson’s First Amendment right to the free 22 exercise of religion. Id. 23 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 24 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the 25 Court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 26 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). “A 27 district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from 28 ORDER - 1 1 the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati 2 v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 In this case, the Court is not persuaded that Hanson should be allowed to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. First, Hanson alleges that he is a small business owner and that the 5 licensing requirement interferes with his right to hire employees. Hanson, however, has 6 failed to disclose on his application any income in relation to this business. Second, 7 Hanson’s proposed complaint appears to be without merit because anti-discrimination 8 laws governing employment are a well settled aspect of Washington and federal law. 9 Therefore, the Court denies Hanson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Hanson must 10 11 pay the filing fee for this action no later than March 6, 2012 or this case will be dismissed. Hanson is hereby advised that, even if he pays the filing fee, his complaint 12 may be dismissed as frivolous. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 DATED this 6th day of February, 2012. 16 17 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 2