Doscher v. Public Storage et al

Filing 2

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and closing case.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 CHRISTIAN DOSCHER,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 PUBLIC STORAGE, et al.,
12

CASE NO. C13-5457 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Christian Doscher’s (“Doscher”)

15 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkts. 1-2 & 1-3)
16 (“Complaint”).
17

On June 10, 2013, Doscher filed the instant motion and the proposed complaint

18 asserting state law causes of action. Complaint, § R. Doscher argues that the Court has
19 jurisdiction to hear this case because the parties are diverse and the amount in
20 controversy is in excess of the jurisdictional limit. Id. § B. One of the Defendants,
21 however, Sue Maltempi, is a resident of Washington (id. § A), and Doscher is also a
22 resident of Washington (Dkt. 1-4).

ORDER - 1

1

The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

2 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the
3 “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be
4 allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th
5 Cir. 1986). Moreover, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed
6 in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375
7 U.S. 845 (1963).
8

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

9 court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
10

In this case, Doscher has failed to meet his burden to proceed in forma pauperis.

11 While Doscher may qualify financially, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this
12 case because there is not complete diversity between the parties. Therefore, the Court
13 DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the complaint for
14 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 12th day of June, 2013.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2