Miles v. State of Washington et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days from the date of this order to file an Amended Complaint or pay the filing fee; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/12/2016 (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
MARCIA MILES,

CASE NO. C16-5508-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
11

[DKT. #1]
STATE OF WASHINGTON,

12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Miles’ Motion for Leave to Proceed in

15 forma pauperis [Dkt. #1], supported by her proposed complaint. Miles asserts she is mentally
16 and physically disabled. Miles previously sued “Ben Goold, et al.” in King County, and the
17 defendants removed the case to this court. See Miles v Goold, No. 15 CV 00431JLR. Judge
18 Robart remanded the case to King County, where it was dismissed. Miles claims she timely
19 appealed directly to the Supreme court of Washington, but the Clerk—defendant Carlson—
20 refused to “engage in effective communication and to modify policies and procedures.”
21 Apparently, the underlying case remains at the Supreme Court.
22

In this case, Miles asks the Court to “direct the Supreme Court and its clerk to uphold the

23 constitution and laws and stop discriminating against the plaintiff, modify policies and
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

1 procedures – reasonably, and provide her with a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
2 She also seeks compensation for her appeal and for emotional distress, and costs. [Dkt. #-1 at 4]
3

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

4 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court has broad
5 discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
6 actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.
7 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in
8 forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action
9 is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.
10 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint
11 is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778
12 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
13

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

14 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for
15 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell
16 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A
17 claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
18 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
20

Miles’ proposed complaint does not meet this standard. First, she has alleged no facts, at

21 all. She has not described the underlying case, the accommodations she seeks, or the nature of
22 the discrimination she has faced. Her complaint is purely conclusory.
23
24

[DKT. #1] - 2

1

Second, even if she added factual context supporting her conclusory claims, this court

2 does not have jurisdiction to generally “Order” the Washington Supreme Court to “uphold the
3 Constitution.” And it does not have jurisdiction to review that Court’s decisions or reasoning,
4 even if Miles articulated facts that would support her conclusory claim that the Court and its
5 Clerk are failing to accommodate her (which she has not).
6

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

7 Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
8 caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those
9 judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517,
10 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal
11 district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court and
12 seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a forbidden de facto
13 appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2003); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041,
14 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
15

Finally, a litigant cannot sue the judge or the court presiding over her case in federal

16 court (or anywhere else) for ruling against her. See Pierson v Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967);
17 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) (Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from
18 civil suit for judicial acts taken within the scope of their jurisdiction). The Clerk is similarly
19 entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from all such claims. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991);
20 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1986); Giampa v. Duckworth, 586 F. App’x 284
21 (2014) (clerk has quasi-judicial immunity).
22

For these reasons, Miles has not met the standard for obtaining in forma pauperis status,

23 and her Motion for Leave to Proceed in that manner is DENIED. She shall pay the filing fee or
24

[DKT. #1] - 3

1 file a proposed amended complaint addressing and curing these deficiencies within 21 days of
2 this Order.
3

Miles is cautioned, however, that there is nothing in her current complaint that would

4 survive a motion to dismiss. She cannot “fix” her complaint to allege a viable claim against the
5 Washington Supreme Court for the manner in which it resolved or even considered her “direct
6 appeal” of the King County Superior Court’s order of dismissal. She cannot obtain a monetary or
7 other judgment against the Clerk for the performance of her duties. The flaws are in the nature of
8 the claims themselves, not just the paucity of facts supporting them. Any proposed amended
9 complaint asserting similar claims, or seeking similar relief, will not result in in forma pauperis
10 status.
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated this 12th day of July, 2016.

14

A

15

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #1] - 4