Engen v. MS Services LLC/Mountain States Adjustments

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in its present form. Plaintiff may either amend her application pursuant to this Order or pay the filing fee within 15 days of this order or this matter will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 1/29/2013 (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

12
13

ORDER

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. 13-CV-5034-RBL

CAROL ENGEN,

(Dkt. #1)

v.
MS SERVICES LLC/MOUNTAIN STATES
ADJUSTMENTS,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this suit under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
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
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 “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).
Here, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint seeks statutory damages of $1,000 against

3
4

Defendant for obtaining her credit report without a permissible purpose, violating 15 U.S.C.

5

1681b. Mountain States Adjustments appears, however, to be a collection agency, which is

6

authorized to obtain credit reports. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3), “any consumer reporting

7

agency may furnish a consumer report . . . [t]o a person it has reason to believe . . . intends to use

8

the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer or . . . review or

9

collection of an account.” Thus, the proposed Complaint appears to have no arguable substance

10
11

in law.
CONCLUSION

12

Plaintiff may amend her application to proceed in forma pauperis to explain why

13

Defendant has otherwise violated FCRA, or she may pay the filing fee. Either must occur within

14

15 days of this order or the case will be dismissed.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated this 29th day of January 2013.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2