Curry v. Vancouver Housing Authority et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 10/12/2016 (DN). (cc to pltf)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 KENNETH TAYLOR CURRY, CASE NO. C16-5784-RBL 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 11 12 13 VANCOUVER HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant. 14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Curry’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, supported by his proposed complaint. Curry seeks to sue the Vancouver housing 16 authority and one of its employees for “intercepting, delaying, and withholding reasonable 17 accommodation request,” and for “rescinding the issue Housing Choice Voucher of this plaintiff 18 and to deny plaintiff participation in such program.” [Dkt. # 1-1] 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 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 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 A pro se Plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it 7 must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for 8 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell 9 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A 10 claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 11 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 13 Curry’s current proposed pleading does not meet this standard. He has not pled a 14 plausible claim because the story in his complaint is conclusory and incomplete. What was the 15 reasonable accommodation he sought, and why? From whom did he seek it? How did he seek it? 16 Who rejected it? When? Why? The complaint also does not articulate a plausible claim— it does 17 not address this court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, and it does not 18 articulate what specific right he claims was violated. It also appears that Curry maybe appealing 19 some underlying administrative process. Is that process complete? How was it resolved? Is this 20 an appeal of that decision? 21 For these reasons, the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. He 22 shall pay the filing fee or submit a proposed amended complaint within 21 days of the date of 23 this order. Any amended complaint should address these issues and deficiencies. It should 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2 1 endeavor to tell a chronological story that identifies the parties and the facts and the claim for 2 relief, as well as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction. It need not and should not be filled with 3 legal citations; those can be addressed later. But Curry must plead plausible facts that would 4 support a claim for relief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated this 12th day of October, 2016. 8 A 9 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?