Habener v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel, and dismissing complaint.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8

SHAWN DANIEL HABENER,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
11 INVESTIGATION, et al.,
12

CASE NO. C13-5561 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL, AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shawn Daniel Habener’s

15 (“Habener”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), proposed complaint (Dkt. 116 1), and motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 2).
17

On July 11, 2013, Habener filed the instant motion and proposed complaint

18 alleging that multiple government agencies have used unlawful practices to destroy his
19 past profession. 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 “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be

ORDER - 1

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

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

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

In this case, Habener’s complaint is frivolous and has no arguable basis in law or

15 fact. He fails to name any of the allegedly undercover agents that ridiculed him for the
16 last three years, and his alleged damages are destruction of an unspecified “former
17 profession.” Moreover, Habener fails to allege sufficient facts or law to establish
18 jurisdiction in this Court. Therefore, the Court DENIES his motion to proceed in forma
19 pauperis (Dkt. 1) and DISMISSES his proposed complaint. The motion to appoint
20 counsel is denied as moot.
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated this 17th day of July, 2013.

A

3
4

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3