Richey v. Thaut

Filing 28

ORDER rescinding In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal re 27 , signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 4/16/2012 (DN). (copy mailed to plaintiff) Modified on 4/16/2012; Order electronically forwarded to CCA (LMK).

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

THOMAS WILLIAMS SINCLAIR RICHEY,

No. 11-cv-5680 RBL

Plaintiff,

11

[Dkt. #27]

v.

12

ORDER DENYING IFP STATUS ON
APPEAL

Defendant.

10

DOUGLAS THAUT,

13
14

On February 26, 2012, this Court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation

15
16

dismissing the case. Plaintiff has filed an appeal and the question of continued in forma pauperis

17

status is before the Court.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

18
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
26
27
28

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
1984).

Order - 1

1

Plaintiff’s appeal must be found frivolous. Magistrate Strombom properly recommended

2

dismissal because Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies, as required by the Prison

3

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Plaintiff’s initial grievance (regarding denial of a

4

shower after he made derogatory comments to a guard concerning her weight) was returned to

5

him so that he could delete “objectionable language.” Instead of removing the objectionable

6

language, Plaintiff filed a grievance on a grievance. He then filed this lawsuit. The Complaint is

7

without merit, the appeal is frivolous, and in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. (Dkt. #27.)

8
9

Dated this 16th day of April 2012.

10

12

A

13

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2