Davis v. Spearbeck

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or the case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 4/21/2014 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

THOMAS E DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C14-5272 RBL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

v.
[Dkt. #1]
LEAH CHERI PARKER, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas Davis’ application to proceed in
forma pauperis. [Dkt #1] For the reasons below, the application is DENIED.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

19

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad

20

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

21

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

22

Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

23

in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

24

action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369

25

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis

26

complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.

27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP - 1

1

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

1984).

3

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to lack merit on its face. Plaintiff alleges that the

4

Defendant engaged in a conspiracy and lied to the courts to force him to pay child support. He

5

seeks to overturn a 2004 state court Order regarding his child support obligations on theories of

6

fraud and conspiracy. Both the Washington Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court already

7

dismissed Plaintiff’s appeals. To the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to review a decision of the

8

state court, this Court has no jurisdiction to do so. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

9

413, 415-16 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87

10

(1983). A district court must give full faith and credit to state court judgments, even if the state

11

court erred by refusing to consider a party’s federal claims. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi

12

Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005). The Complaint asserts no plausible cause of

13
14

action.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [Dkt. #1] Plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or the case will be dismissed. The

15

Plaintiff is cautioned that the claim is frivolous and may be dismissed on the Court’s own
16

Motion, even if he pays the filing fee.
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22
23

Dated this 21st day of April, 2014.

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
[DKT. #1] - 2