Hankins v. Lewis County Health Departrment et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying appointment of counsel; plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee and file an amended complaint; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 6/3/2014 (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

CLARENCE HANKINS,

CASE NO. C14-5327 RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING IFP

10
v.
11
12

LEWIS COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTRMENT, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hankins’ Application to Proceed in
15
forma pauperis. [Dkt. #1] Hankins’ proposed complaint alleges that the Lewis Count y Health
16
Department and its Prosecutor’s Office (acting through unnamed individuals) deprived him of
17
various constitutional rights, harassed him, discriminated against him, failed to provide him
18
reasonable accommodations (at his own home), and, because his property was formerly a gold
19
mine, attempted to murder him with a firearm. He primarily asserts claims based on these
20
allegations under the Fair Housing Act.
21
Hankins also references a prior Lewis County litigation and adverse judgment, and asks
22
the Court to vacate that judgment. He seeks damages, punitive damages, and declaratory and
23
injunctive relief. Finally, Hankins asks the Court to appoint counsel.
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 1

1
2

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

3 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
4 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
5

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

6

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

7 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
8 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
9 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
10
1984).
11
Hankins’ proposed compliant is insufficient under this standard. If and to the extent he
12 seeks to assert claims based on the violation of his constitutional rights, he must name the
13 individuals who so deprived him under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (or identify the municipality that
14

deprived him of such a right, and assert a claim based on the allegation “that official policy is
responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution . . . .” Monell v. New York

15
16

City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)).
Plaintiff’s FHA claims appear to be based on his claim that someone failed to provide

17 reasonable accommodations (for what is not clear) on property that he claims he owns.
18
19

There is no basis for the claim that a County Housing Department broadly has an
obligation to improve a property owner’s property to accommodate his disability or to generally
improve that property.

20

Hankins’ “attempted murder” claim is not fully described, but it can be said with

21 certainty that the facts he has alleged thus far are not sufficient to state such a claim against the
22 Health Department or the Prosecutor’s office.
23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 2

1

Finally, to the extent Hankins asks this Court to review and vacate a state court decision,

2 this Court has no jurisdiction to do so. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16
3 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983).
4

For these reasons, the Compliant as drafted is frivolous on its face, and although Hankins
is apparently indigent, he has not established that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

5

No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless the

6 plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social
7 Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the
8 discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding in forma pauperis. United
States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court will
9
appoint counsel only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d
10
1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of
11 both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims
12 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331
13

(internal quotations omitted). These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision
on whether to appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id.

14

Hankins has not met this even higher standard, and the Court will not appoint an attorney

15 to pursue the claims in the proposed complaint. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
16 DENIED.
17
18

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint addressing these shortcomings—articulating in
plain fashion the “who, what, when, where and why” of his factual allegations, naming the
relevant actors, and describing what they did that violated his rights, or pay the filing fee within

19
20
21

15 days of the date of this Order. If he does not, the case will be dismissed without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2014.

A

22
23

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 3