Lopezlena v. Litton Loan Service LP et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 5/8/2012 (DN). (cc to pltf.)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

FERNANDO LOPEZLENA,
Plaintiff,

10

No. 12-cv-5313 RBL
v.

11
12

Order
LITTON LOAN SERVICE, LP; OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

13

Defendants.

[Dkt. #1]

14
15
16

Before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Lopezlena’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [Dkt. #1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the application.

17
18
19
20
21

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.

27

1984).

28

Order - 1

1

Here, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates income, but that income appears sufficiently

2

offset by his dependents and debts to warrant granting the application. Thus, the Court

3

GRANTS the application. [Dkt. #1].

4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated this 8th day of May 2011.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2