Hartford v. City of Elma

Filing 6

ORDER denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 2/11/2016 (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

IRA RAY HARTFORD IV,

CASE NO. C15-5927 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP

v.
11
CITY OF ELMA,
12
Defendant.
13
14

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

15 in forma pauperis, [Dkt #s 1 and 4] supported by his proposed complaint [Dkt. #5]. It appears
16 that Plaintiff Hartford is indigent.
17

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

18 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
19 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
20 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
21 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
22 in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
23 action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP - 1

1 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
2 complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
3 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
4 1984).
5

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

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

Hartford is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under this standard. His 50-page

13 proposed complaint is wholly unintelligible. There is no indication of who is being sued for
14 what conduct, when it occurred, or upon what legal basis. The complaint appears to contain
15 primarily incomplete excerpts from other filings or documents—there are numerous copyright
16 notices interspersed throughout—and most of the sentences and thoughts are not complete or in
17 any logical order. There are vague references to prior proceedings, and perhaps some
18 dissatisfaction with Mr. Hartford’s attorney’s performance in that earlier case. Indeed, one of the
19 documents is entitled “Request for Appeal” [Dkt. #1-4]. It appears to be dated more than a year
20 ago, and it too is impossible to understand:
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
In any event, whatever the import of this paragraph or this claim, this Court cannot and

12

13 will not review or reverse decisions made in state court proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman
14 doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state15 court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
16 Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed.
17 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal district court
18 asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court and seeks to
19 vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel
th
th
20 v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9 Cir.2003); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9 Cir.

21 2008).
22

The remainder of the Plaintiff’s allegations are similar, and are similarly impossible to

23 address, either by the Court or by a defendant. The Motion for Leave to proceed in forma
24 pauperis is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 30 days of the date of
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP - 3

1 this Order, or file a new proposed amended complaint by that date, or the case will be
2 DISMISSED. Any amended complaint should articulate the “who what when where and why”
3 of any claim, identify the parties and the legal basis for any claim, the measure and nature of any
4 damages claimed, and the source of the legal right to those damages. It should address the basis
5 for this Court’s jurisdiction over the claims and the parties.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated this 11th day of February, 2016.

A

8
9

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP - 4