Clark v. State of Idaho

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days to pay the filing fee or submit an Amended Complaint addressing the issues in the Order, or the case will be dismissed without further notice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 12/1/2016 (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
JAMES W CLARK,

CASE NO. C16-5978-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

11
STATE OF IDAHO,

[Dkt. #1]

12
Defendant.
13
14

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

15 forma pauperis. Clark seeks to sue the state of Idaho, for wrongs he alleges it committed against
16 him in Boise. Clark was apparently injured in an industrial accident, and went through an
17 administrative process in Idaho that he did not agree with. This case appears to be either an
18 appeal of an Idaho Supreme Court decision, or a request that this Court use the determinations
19 made there to award Clark new damages against the state of Idaho. See Clark v Cry Baby Foods,
20 et al., 307 P.3d 1208 (2013)1.
21
22
1

This appears to be the case referenced in Clark’s handwritten complaint; the Court
located another Idaho appellate opinion that appears to be related, Idaho v Clark, 2016 WL
24 699238.
23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

1

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

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

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

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

Clark’s proposed pleading does not meet this standard. First there is no indication that

19 this Court has jurisdiction over the claims, or the State of Idaho. Second, it is apparent that this is
20 the wrong venue. Generally speaking, venue is proper in the judicial district where (1) the
21 defendant resides or (2) where the events giving rise to the case took place. 28 U.S.C.
22 §1391(b)(1) and (2). Only where there is no such district can the plaintiff sue in “any judicial
23 district in which [the] defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
24

[DKT. #1] - 2

1 §1391(b)(3). Clark may reside here, but Idaho does not, and all the events in the complaint took
2 place there.
3

Third, if and to the extent this is an appeal of the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision, this

4 Court does not have jurisdiction to hear it. This Court cannot and will not review or reverse
5 decisions made in state court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state6 court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district
7 court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
8 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in
9 state court brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous
10 legal rulings of the state court and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the
11 federal suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2003);
12 Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
13

For these reasons, Clark’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

14 He shall pay the filing fee or submit a proposed amended complaint within 21 days of the date
15 of this order, or the case will be dismissed without further notice.
16

Any amended complaint should address these issues and deficiencies. It should endeavor

17 to tell a chronological story that identifies the parties and the facts and the claim for relief, as
18 well as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. It need not
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23
24

[DKT. #1] - 3

1 and should not be filled with legal citations; those can be addressed later. But Clark must plead
2 plausible facts that would support a claim for relief.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 1st day of December, 2016.

6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #1] - 4