Denham et al v. Carver III et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 15 days from the date of this Order to amend his Complaint, otherwise this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 5/5/2014 (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
LYNELL DENHAM,

CASE NO. C14-5201 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING IFP
APPLICATION

v.
11

[DKT. #1]
LEONARD CARVER III, et al,

12
Defendant.
13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff Lynell Denham’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

15 [Dkt #1] For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the application and the motion.
16
17

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

18

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th

19 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
20 in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
21 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
22

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.

23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION - 1

1

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.

2 1984).
3
4

The Court will not grant in forma pauperis when it is concerned that a lawsuit is
frivolous. Denham alleges a conspiracy between members of the FBI, Pierce and King County
Sherriff’s Offices, Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, United States Attorney’s Office, and

5

Tacoma, Lacey, and Bellevue Police Departments to arrest him for a series of bank robberies.

6 Denham brings abuse of process, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution,
7 misrepresentation, judicial deception, outrage, slander, and libel claims. He alleges that the
8 Defendants unlawfully arrested him and conspired with each other to misrepresent to the court
that their suspect matched Denham. He seeks 385 million dollars in damages. The Court is
9
concerned Denham’s Complaint is frivolous.
10
First, Denham’s request for 385 million dollars in damages is absurd and cannot be
11 grounded in fact.
12
13

Second, Denham’s Complaint lacks authority for suit against the multiple County and
City employees. Denham brings suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act which allows certain
federal investigative or law enforcement officers to be sued for specific intentional torts, but does

14

not cover the county and city actors. Denham must assert a basis for his claims against the

15 multiple county and city Defendants.
16

Third, many of Denham’s claims are barred at the outset because Denham’s conviction

17 has not been overturned. Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2000) (where an
18

alleged civil rights violation is based on a Fourth Amendment violation and calls into question
the validity of the conviction, the claim cannot stand until the conviction is overturned); see also

19

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (in a malicious prosecution claim the prior criminal

20 proceeding must be was terminated in the Plaintiff’s favor); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park,
21 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir.1998) (false arrest and false imprisonment claims are barred until the
22

conviction is invalidated); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583 (9th Cir. 2007) (judicial
deception claims are barred until the conviction is invalidated).

23
24

[DKT. #1] - 2

1

These claims are not plausible and are frivolous. If Denham wishes to proceed he must

2 amend his Complaint, addressing and correcting the facial deficiencies within 15 days. If he does
3 not, his case will be dismissed without further notice.
4

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff Denham’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED. [Dkt. #1].

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated this 5th day of May, 2014.

9

A

10

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

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

[DKT. #1] - 3