Spice v. Law Office of Brian Roesch et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as this Court lacks jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 11/30/2012 (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

ORDER

Plaintiff,

10

(Dkt. #1, 2)

v.

11
12

No. 12-cv-6005-RBL

TED SPICE,

LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN ROESCH, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff has applied for in forma pauperis status in his proposed suit for alleged

15
16

violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

28

Order - 1

1

Here, the Court must deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff’s

2

proposed Complaint has no basis in law. Plaintiff “seeks removal or remand of his state court
”

3

case, which apparently involves claims for slander (and is apparently on-going). (See Compl. at

4

2, Dkt. #1.) The Complaint is confusing, but from what the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges

5

that Defendants slandered him in state court, and he seeks a remedy in federal court.

6

Unfortunately, a claim under § 1983 requires that a defendant act under color of law, and

7

Defendants here certainly do not. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (
“[e]very person who under color of any

8

statute, ordinance, regulation custome or usage . . . ). Moreover, federal courts are not courts of
”

9

appeal for state cases. In short, the Complaint presents no basis for federal jurisdiction.

10
11

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims, the application to proceed
in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Dated this 30th day of November 2012.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2