Sparks v. Lewis County Prosecutors' Office

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff is to file an amended application within 15 days of this Order as set forth in this Order; denying 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 1/14/2014 (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
PAUL G SPARKS,

CASE NO. C14-5028 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP AND
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

11
12
13

LEWIS COUNTY PROSECUTORS'
OFFICE,

[Dkt. #s 1 & 2]

Defendant.

14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Sparks’ application to proceed in forma
15
pauperis [Dkt. #1], and his Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dkt. #2].
16
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
17
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
18
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
19
actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
20
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
21
in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
22
action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
23
(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IFP AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL - 1

1 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
2 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
3 1984).
4

Mr. Sparks’ filings demonstrate that he meets the “indigent” requirement for IFP status.

5 However, his complaint seeks to assert claims for violation of due process and for attempted pre6 meditated murder. The factual underpinning of these claims is far from clear.
7

The case does not have any arguable substance, factually or legally, at this point. The

8 Motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Plaintiff should file an amended application, setting forth
9 the identities of the parties, the specific facts surrounding the alleged claims, and the claims
10 themselves, within 15 days of the date of this Order. The Complaint should be written in
11 complete sentences, preferably in chronological Order. It should identify the parties and the
12 actors and in some fashion tie them to the actions at issue, and to the claims Plaintiff seeks to
13 assert, and to the damages he claims to have suffered. Alternatively, Plaintiff can pay the filing
14 fee.
15

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney to represent any person

16 unable to afford counsel. Under §1915, the court may appoint counsel in exceptional
17 circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional
18 circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of
19 the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
20 involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #S 1 & 2] - 2

1

Plaintiff’s Motion claims only that he cannot afford an attorney. He has not established

2 any “exception circumstances” that would entitle him to one at the taxpayer’s cost. The Motion
3 for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 14th day of January, 2014.

7

A

8

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #S 1 & 2] - 3