Ressy v. Doe

Filing 5

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice; plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fee or amend his complaint or this matter will be dismissed without further notice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 10/27/2014 (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
HECTOR L RESSY,

CASE NO. C14-5693 RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING IFP

10
v.
11
JOHN DOE #1 THROUGH #8,
12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hector Ressy’s application to proceed in

15 forma pauperis [Dkt. #1]. Ressy’s proposed complaint seeks to sue eight “John Does” (and no
16 actual persons or entities) for generally violating his constitutional rights while arresting and
17 incarcerating him.
18

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

ORDER DENYING IFP - 1

1 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
2 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
3 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
4 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
5 1984).
6

Plaintiff’s claim does not currently meet this standard. He has not identified the statutory

7 or other basis for them, or the actual factual basis for his claims—the “who, what, when, where
8 and why” of any of his claims. Instead, they are purely conclusory: “The acts and omissions of
9 John Does #1-#8 herein proximately caused the deprivation of [Ressy’s rights].” See Fed. R.
10 Civ. P. 8. This is insufficient as a matter of law. Who are the defendants? What did they do?
11 When?
12

Ressy’s application to proceed IFP is therefore DENIED without prejudice. He shall pay

13 the filing fee or file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within 15 days of this
14 Order or the case will be DISMISSED without further notice.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 27th day of October, 2014.

18

A

19

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 2