Elgar v. Hardwick et al

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing complaint. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4
5 BETSY P. ELGAR,
6

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8 TINA HARDWICK, et al.,
9

CASE NO. C12-6003 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

10
11

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Betsy Elgar’s (“Elgar”) motion to

12 proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1).
13

On November 21, 2012, Elgar filed the motion and the complaint stating that

14 Defendants stole all of her money. Dkt. 1–4 (brief description of claim). Upon review of
15 the complaint and attached material, it appears that Elgar is requesting personal
16 reimbursement for the government’s disbursement of funds under the Trouble Asset
17 Relief Program (“TARP”). Elgar seeks $622 billion in assets disbursed to some 6000
18 retail stores.
19

The 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). However, the
21 Court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller
22 v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). “A district court

ORDER - 1

1 may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of
2 the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First
3 Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987).
4

A federal court may dismiss the complaint sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

5 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be
6 granted. See Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial
7 court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a
8 dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”).
9 See also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little
10 doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte,
11 even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has
12 no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
13 1984).
14

In this case, Elgar’s complaint is frivolous because there is no arguable basis in

15 law or fact for the proposition that a taxpayer can personally request reimbursement for
16 the disbursement of funds under TARP. Therefore, the Court denies Elgar’s motion to
17 proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismisses her complaint.
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2012.

A

20
21

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22

ORDER - 2