Rahman v. Chen et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with leave to amend within 30 days of this Order. Signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

NO. C17-1005-JCC

SEEHAM RAHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

11

DAPHNE CHEN and TIMOTHY CHEN,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in the above-entitled action, Dkt. 1. After careful consideration of the application,
proposed complaint, the governing law and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as
follows:
(1)

Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP, Dkt. 1, is DENIED because it does not

18

contain sufficient information regarding his spouse’s income and assets for the Court to have a

19

thorough understanding of plaintiff’s financial situation. Specifically, plaintiff indicates that

20

he is married and his spouse’s net monthly salary is approximately $12,000 per month. Dkt. 1

21
22
23
24

at 1. However, he fails to complete the remaining questions on the IFP affidavit with respect
to his spouse, noting “I do not know about my wife. These (sic) are all my own information.”
Id. For example, he indicates that he does not have any interest in real estate, stocks, bonds, or
retirement, or automobiles, but states that “I do not know about my spouse.” Id. at 2. He also
fails to complete Question 7, which asks him to describe his monthly expenses. Id.
ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiff must sufficiently answer all of the questions on the IFP affidavit approved for

2

use in this district. This information is necessary for the Court to determine whether plaintiff

3

financially qualifies to bring this action without paying the applicable filing fee. If plaintiff is

4

not being financially supported by his spouse’s substantial income, or there are other

5
6
7

circumstances the Court needs to know to understand why plaintiff believes that he cannot pay
court fees and costs, plaintiff should so indicate in response to Question 8.
(2)

Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND and shall have 30 days from

the date of this Order to correct these deficiencies by filing a new and complete IFP

8

application. Plaintiff is advised that this case may be subject to dismissal if he does not

9

respond to this Order or fails to correct the deficiencies.

10
11
12

(3)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff, and to the

Honorable John C. Coughenour.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2017.

13

A

14

JAMES P. DONOHUE
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 2