Carey v. International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 612 et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has 30 days to pay the filing fees or the case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 1/23/2012 (DN). (Copy mailed to plaintiff.)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

SUZANNE CAREY,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. 12-cv-5025 RBL
v.
Order
INT’L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
(IUOE), LOCAL 612,
[Dkt. #1]

Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Suzanne Carey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
[Dkt. #1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the application.
II.

DISCUSSION

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

20

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad

21

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

22

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th

23

Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

24

in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

25

action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369

26

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis

27

complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.

28

Order - 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, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s application because (1) Plaintiff appears to have

4

funds sufficient to pay the necessary filing fees; and (2) the claims in the Complaint have been

5

previously litigated and dismissed, and thus, lack merit.

6

First, Plaintiff lists a monthly income of $1,710.00 and claims no dependents. The Court

7

recognizes that filing fees can be onerous but must conclude, nonetheless, that Plaintiff has funds

8

sufficient to pay the necessary costs.

9

Second, the Complaint appears to be a reassertion of claims previously dismissed. See

10

Carey v. Office of Prof’l Emp. Int’l Union, No. 04-cv-5438 FDB (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2004)

11

(dismissing claims against International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 612), aff’d, No.

12

05-35692 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2006). Thus, the Court must conclude that the Complaint lacks

13

merit on its face.

14
15
16

III.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [Dkt. #1]. Plaintiff has 30 days to pay the filing fees or the case may be dismissed.

17
18

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012.

19

21

A

22

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2