Nunnery v. Kitsap County et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Judge Benjamin H. Settle and remanding case. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 ALICE NUNNERY, CASE NO. C17-5225 BHS 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 v. KITSAP COUNTY, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING Defendants. 11 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Alice Nunnery’s (“Nunnery”) 14 notice of removal (Dkt. 1), complaint (Dkt. 1-1), and motion to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (Dkt. 2). 16 On March 27, 2017, Nunnery removed her complaint from Kitsap County 17 Superior Court for the State of Washington asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under 18 28 U.S.C. 1331 because a federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Dkt. 1. 19 Nunnery also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. 20 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 21 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); W.D. Wash. 22 Local Rules LCR 3(b). However, the “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING - 1 1 civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn 2 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has broad discretion in denying 3 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 4 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963) 5 In this case, the Court denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 6 remands the matter sua sponte. The rules of removal provide that “any civil action 7 brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 8 jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 9 1441(a). “No right exists in favor of a person who, as plaintiff, has filed an action in the 10 state court, to cause the removal of such action to a federal court.” In re Walker, 375 11 F.2d 678, 678 (9th Cir. 1967). Nunnery, who filed this action in state court, does not 12 have a right to remove this action to federal court. Moreover, even if she possessed a 13 right to remove, the complaint fails to state a federal cause of action on its face. Thus, 14 the Court DENIES Nunnery’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because removal is 15 improper and REMANDS the matter to Kitsap County Superior Court. The Clerk shall 16 remand this matter and close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated this 30th day of March, 2017. 19 20 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 21 22 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING - 2

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?