Davis v. Spearbeck

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or the case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 4/21/2014 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 THOMAS E DAVIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. C14-5272 RBL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP v. [Dkt. #1] LEAH CHERI PARKER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 18 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas Davis’ application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt #1] For the reasons below, the application is DENIED. A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 19 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad 20 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil 21 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th 22 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed 23 in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the 24 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 25 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis 26 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP - 1 1 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 2 1984). 3 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to lack merit on its face. Plaintiff alleges that the 4 Defendant engaged in a conspiracy and lied to the courts to force him to pay child support. He 5 seeks to overturn a 2004 state court Order regarding his child support obligations on theories of 6 fraud and conspiracy. Both the Washington Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court already 7 dismissed Plaintiff’s appeals. To the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to review a decision of the 8 state court, this Court has no jurisdiction to do so. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 9 413, 415-16 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 10 (1983). A district court must give full faith and credit to state court judgments, even if the state 11 court erred by refusing to consider a party’s federal claims. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi 12 Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005). The Complaint asserts no plausible cause of 13 14 action. For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. #1] Plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or the case will be dismissed. The 15 Plaintiff is cautioned that the claim is frivolous and may be dismissed on the Court’s own 16 Motion, even if he pays the filing fee. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 23 Dated this 21st day of April, 2014. A RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 [DKT. #1] - 2