Grabois v. Grabois

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to pay the filing fee or file an Amended Complaint or this matter will be dismissed without further notice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/9/2016 (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

OXANA V GRABOIS,

CASE NO. C15-5876 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

11
ADAM J GRABOIS,
12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Grabois’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

15 in forma pauperis and her proposed complaint [Dkt. #1]. Grabois immigrated to the United
16 States and married a U.S. citizen. They apparently had a child and got divorced. Grabois is now a
17 U.S. citizen. She sought child support from her ex-husband during her Pierce County dissolution
18 proceeding, but her claim was apparently denied. She now seeks that support here.
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 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 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).
7

A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it

8 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for
9 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell
10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A
11 claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
12 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
14

Grabois is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under this standard. Her complaint

15 does not identify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties or the controversy, and it
16 facially asks it to award her money damages that were denied in a prior state court proceeding.
17

This Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions made in state court. The

18 Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
19 caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those
20 judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517,
21 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal
22 district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court and
23 seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a forbidden de facto
24

-2

1 appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2003); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041,
2 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
3

For these reasons, Grabois’s in forma pauperis application is DENIED. She must pay the

4 filing fee or submit a proposed amended complaint addressing and remedying these deficiencies
5 within 30 days of this order, or the matter will be dismissed.
6

Any amended complaint should identify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over her ex-

7 husband and the dispute, the legal basis for the claim, and explain why it is not barred by her
8 unsuccessful effort to obtain the same relief in state court.
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2016.

10

12

A

13

Ronald B. Leighton (as auth/dn)
United States District Judge

11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

-3