Hartford v. City of Elma et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or this matter may be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/28/2014 (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

IRA RAY DEAN HARTFORD IV,

CASE NO. C14-5519 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

11
CITY OF ELMA,
12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Ira Hartford’s application to proceed in

15 forma pauperis. [Dkt #1] For the reasons below, the application is DENIED.
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 MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP - 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

Hartford’s complaint is difficult to decipher, but appears to broadly allege that the Mayor

5 of the City of Elma has conspired against Hartford and attempted to cover up “malicious
6 activities.” Hartford accuses the Mayor of some role in covering up evidence from a fire in
7 Hartford’s home, as well as ordering Hartford’s business to be shut down. Though Hartford has
8 endured some unfortunate circumstances, the Mayor’s tangential role in those situations is
9 simply too far removed to create any legitimate conspiracy claim.
10

Hartford’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. He has 15 days to pay the

11 filing fees or the case may be dismissed.
12
13

Dated this 26th day of July, 2014.

15

A

16

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP - 2