West v. Mabus et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 30 days to amend the complaint and/or pay the filing fee or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/18/2016 (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
JOE ANN WEST,

CASE NO. C16-5191 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IFP

v.
11
RAY MABUS,

DKT. #1

12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Joe Ann West’s application to proceed in

15 forma pauperis [Dkt. #1]. West is an African American former female employee of the Puget
16 Sound Naval Shipyard. She asks the Court to appoint her “agent” of a class of similarly-situated
17 African American women, alleging that the Shipyard’s use of the USAJob’s website unfairly
18 favors white males.
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 Cir.
23 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in
24
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IFP - 1

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

The Court does not deny in forma pauperis status lightly, especially where a Plaintiff

7 alleges racial discrimination. However, as a non-attorney, West cannot represent her putative
8 class members. See Bradvica v. Terhune, 198 F.3d 253 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing McShane v. United
9 States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion
10 by denying non-attorney plaintiff IFP status because he could not represent class members).
11

Therefore, West’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1] is DENIED. She

12 may amend her application to assert claims only on her own behalf, or she may pay the filing fee.
13 Either must occur within 30 days of this order, or the case will be dismissed.
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 18th day of March, 2016.

17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

19
20
21
22
23
24

DKT. #1 - 2