Hopkins v. Warren et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing or file a second amended proposed complaint, or this matter may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 12/23/2013 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

DENNIS R HOPKINS,

CASE NO. C13-6000 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

11
JAMES E WARREN, et al.,

[Dkt. #3]

12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hopkins’ Amended Application To

15 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Dkt. #3] The Court denied the Plaintiff’s initial application
16 without prejudice because the Plaintiff’s first proposed complaint did not, and likley could not,
17 allege that the defendants—his landlord and the owner of his apartment, whom he claimed
18 illegally evicted him and stole his property while he was in the hospital—were “state actors” for
19 purposes of his proposed constitutional claims.
20

A plaintiff cannot assert a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim [for violation his constitutional rights]

21 against any defendant who is not a state actor. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). This
22 determination is made using a two-part test: (1) “the deprivation must . . . be caused by the
23 exercise of some right or a privilege created by the government or a rule of conduct imposed by
24
ORDER DENYING AMENDED APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

1 the government;” and (2) “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may
2 fairly be said to be a governmental actor.” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192
3 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999).
4

Plaintiffs’ lengthy and repetitive complaint consistently alleges that his landlord and the

5 owner of his apartment building violated a variety of his constitutional rights. He does not allege
6 that these defendants are governmental employees or that they can remotely be construed as
7 acting on behalf of any government or governmental agency. Instead, they appear to be private
8 individuals with whom Mr. Hopkins has a landlord tenant dispute. The proposed constitutional
9 claims against these defendants are not cognizable—they are not valid— as a matter of law.
10

The amended application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED WITHOUT

11 PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file a second amended proposed complaint
12 within 15 days of this order, or the matter will be dismissed. If the filing fee is paid, and Plaintiff
13 seeks to file the amended complaint attached to his amended application [Dkt. #3], that facially
14 deficient complaint may be dismissed by the court on its own motion.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2013.

18

A

19

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #3] - 2