Ozkan v. Unknown Defendants

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint within 14 days of this order or the case will be dismissed without further notice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 2/27/2017 (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
NIKITA OZKAN,

CASE NO. C17-5144RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER

10
v.
11
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Nikita Ozkan’s Motion for leave

15 to proceed in forma pauperis, supported by his proposed complaint and a variety of exhibits
16 [Dkt. #1].
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 Cir.
21 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in
22 forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action
23 is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.
24

ORDER - 1

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

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

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

Ozkan’s complaint does not meet this standard, no matter how liberally construed. It does

12 not name any defendants, and it does not contain a single complete sentence. It is instead a
13 disorganized collection of words:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The Court cannot make sense of these words. The Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED. The Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint within 14 days
of the date of this order. If he does not, the case will be dismissed without further notice.
Any amended complaint should describe, in complete sentences: the parties, the nature of
the claims, a statement of facts (preferably in chronological order) describing the “who what
where when and why” of the claim, the legal basis for the claim, and a statement of the Court’s
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. It should also identify the relief sought and
the basis for it. A number alone, regardless of its size, will not suffice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2017.

A

22
23

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

24

ORDER - 3