Contreras v. Wesley et al

Filing 4

ORDER finding as moot 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery; denying Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 12/12/2012 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

ROCKY MEL CONTRERAS,

CASE NO. C12-5971RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
WES WESLEY, et al,
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [DKT. 1] AND
DENYING MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
[DKT. 3]

Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on two motions by Plaintiff, Rocky Mel Contreras.

15 The Court has reviewed the Complaint and the mistitled Motion for Discovery and Inspection.
16 In the Motion for Discovery and Inspection, the plaintiff does nothing more than to supply
17 information about his indigency. It is not a discovery request to any party.
18

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [DKT. 1] AND
DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION [DKT. 3] - 1

1 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
2 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
3 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
4 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
5 1984).
6

A review of the Complaint convinces the Court that the Complaint is frivolous and it has

7 no arguable substance in law or fact. For that reason, the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
8 Pauperis [Dkt. #1] is DENIED. The Motion for Discovery and Inspection [Dkt. #3] is DENIED
9 AS MOOT.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated this 12th day of December, 2012.

12

A

13

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [DKT. 1] AND
DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION [DKT. 3] - 2