Renjoir v. State of Washington et al

Filing 2

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

2
3

4 WILLIAM RENJOIR,
Plaintiff,

5
v.

6
7

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendants.

8
9

CASE NO. C13-5556 BHS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff William Renjoir’s (“Renjoir”)

10 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1).
11

On July 10, 2013, Renjoir filed the instant motion and proposed complaint

12 alleging that the State of Washington’s emergency shelters are inadequate. Dkt. 1-1.
13

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

14 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the
15 “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be
16 allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th
17 Cir. 1986). Moreover, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed
18 in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375
19 U.S. 845 (1963).
20

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

21 it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
22 Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may

ORDER - 1

1 dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be
2 made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). See also Mallard
3 v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court
4 would have the power to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an
5 express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in
6 law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
7

In this case, Renjoir has failed to establish jurisdiction in this Court. In order to

8 have standing to pursue an action, a plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact-an
9 invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b)
10 actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
11 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). “When . . . a plaintiff’s asserted
12 injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation)
13 of someone else, much more is needed.” Id. at 561. Renjoir’s allegations are a
14 generalized grievance of the government’s lack of regulation and fail to allege facts or
15 law giving rise to jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the
16 complaint for lack of standing and DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 17th day of July, 2013.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2