Engen v. MS Services LLC/Mountain States Adjustments

Filing 4

ORDER denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has seven days from the date of this order to pay the filing fee, or the case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/6/2013 (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. #3)

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

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this suit under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., but the Court dismissed the application because it lacked
merit. The Court granted leave to amend the application, and Plaintiff has done so.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s amendment fails to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff may file suit, but
she will have to pay the regular filing fees.
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

Order - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

1984).

5

Plaintiff’s proposed complaint seeks statutory damages of $1,000 against Defendant for

6

obtaining her credit report without a permissible purpose, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681b. She

7

implies, but fails to allege, the nature of Defendant’s supposed violation, which she apparently

8

believes relates to her credit card account (although this is the Court’s speculation). See Pl.’s

9

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. #3.
CONCLUSION

10
11
12

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt.
#3) is DENIED. Plaintiff has 7 days to pay the filing fees, or the case will be dismissed.

13
14

Dated this 6th day of March 2013.

16

A

17

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2