Ito v. State of Hawaii

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 15 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint and/or pay the filing fee; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 11/5/2014 (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
ELISAPETA F ITO,

CASE NO. C14-5839 RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING IFP

10
v.
11
STATE OF HAWAII,
12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Ito’s Application to proceed in forma

15 pauperis [Dkt. #1]. Ito was previously a resident of Hawaii. He lost his job there and moved to
16 Washington. Hawaii apparently terminated his unemployment benefits there, when he moved
17 here. Ito’s proposed complaint asks this court to “re-open” that determination, and to force
18 Hawaii to “reconsider their decision” and “grant unemployment benefits.” [Dkt. #1-1 at 3]
19

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

20 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
21 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
22 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
23 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 1

1 in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
2 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
3 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
4 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
5 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
6 1984).The Court will not grant in forma pauperis when it is concerned that a lawsuit is frivolous.
7

Ito’s proposed complaint does not meet this standard. He has not identified the basis for

8 this Court’s jurisdiction over the State of Hawaii, or over what is essentially an appeal (or
9 Motion for Reconsideration) of a decision made by a Hawaii state agency (or possibly a Hawaii
10 state court). To the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to review a decision of the state court, this
11 Court has no jurisdiction to do so. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923);
12 Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983). And, to the extent
13 Ito seeks to sue Hawaii for money damages, he may face an Eleventh Amendment sovereign
14 immunity problem.
15

Plaintiff Ito’s IFP Application is therefore DENIED. Ito shall file an amended complaint

16 addressing and correcting these deficiencies, or pay the filing fee within 15 days of this Order. If
17 he does not, the case will be dismissed without prejudice, without further notice.
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 5th day of November, 2014.

21

A

22

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 2