Ozkan v. Unknown Defendants

Filing 4

ORDER denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSING this matter as frivolous on its face; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 5/22/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-5144RBL

NIKITA OZKAN,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15
16

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Ozkan’s proposed amended complaint
[Dkt. #3] in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1].
The Court ordered Ozkan to pay the filing fee or file an amended proposed amended

17

complaint addressing a number of deficiencies in his first attempt. [Dkt. #2]. The Document he

18

filed in response is no closer to articulating a plausible claim than was his first complaint.

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

23

Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

1

in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

2

action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369

3

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis

4

complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.

5

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.

6

1984).

7

Ozkan’s proposed amended complaint does not meet this standard. It remains a

8

disorganized collection or words, and it has not identified any single act or defendant or claim. It

9

has no ascertainable “facts;” it does not make sense:

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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The document is 28 pages long, but the above sample is representative of the remainder.
The Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED as
frivolous on its face. The Clerk shall send the plaintiff a copy of this Order and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2017.

A

14
15

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3