Malevannaya et al v. Transunion

Filing 3

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

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 YEKATERINA MALEVANNAYA and
ROMAN MALEVANNAYA,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
TRANSUNION,
12
Defendant.
13

CASE NO. C13-5325 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

14
This matter comes before the Court on Yekaterina Malevannaya and Roman
15
Malevannaya’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed
16
complaint (Dkt. 1-1).
17
On April 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion and proposed complaint
18
alleging that Defendant Transunion discriminated against them because they are listed as
19
deceased individuals on credit reports. Dkt. 1–1.
20
The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
21
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the
22

ORDER - 1

1 “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be
2 allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th
3 Cir. 1986). Moreover, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed
4 in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375
5 U.S. 845 (1963).
6

A federal court may dismiss sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when

7 it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
8 Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may
9 dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be
10 made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). See also Mallard
11 v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court
12 would have the power to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an
13 express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in
14 law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
15

In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Court should exercise its

16 discretion to allow this matter to proceed because Plaintiffs cannot possibly win relief on
17 the claim they have asserted. The inaccurate reporting of credit information is not a
18 cognizable civil rights violation. Although under some circumstances Plaintiffs may seek
19 judicial review of credit reporting inaccuracies, such claims are based on the failure to
20 correct inaccuracies and not discrimination because of an individual’s national origin.
21 Moreover, when asserting such claims, there may exist preliminary requirements that
22

ORDER - 2

1 Plaintiffs notify the credit reporting agency of the inaccuracies and exhaust possible
2 private remedies.
3

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma

4 pauperis is DENIED, the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiffs
5 complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close this case.
6

Dated this 1st day of May, 2013.

A

7
8

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3