Renner v. Sullivan

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint, or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 5/30/2017 (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. C17-5241-RBL

TRISHA E RENNER,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.
SULLIVAN, et al.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP
DKT. #1

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Trisha Renner’s Motion to Proceed In

15

Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #1]. Renner sues three South Hill precinct officers for endangering her

16

child. She alleges she took her child to Heritage Park, and as she was leaving, officers

17

handcuffed her and transported her in an ambulance to Good Samaritan hospital for a mental

18

health evaluation. She claims officers endangered her child by taking him to the precinct instead

19

of their house, which was across the street from the park.

20

A 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). The court has broad

22

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

23

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 1

1

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

2

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

3

is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.

4

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

5

is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778

6

F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

7

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

8

must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for

9

relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing

10

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A

11

claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

12

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

13

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

14

Renner has demonstrated her indigency but not a lack of frivolity. She has not worked

15

since 2008, and relies on supplemental security income to support herself and her son. Her

16

complaint, though, does not plead sufficient facts for the court to understand how the defendants

17

harmed her son. Renner has not described who handcuffed her, who transported her to the

18

hospital, or who took her son to the precinct. She also has not set forth how long her son was at

19

the precinct, or what happened while he was there.

20

Renner shall file an amended complaint, or pay the court’s filing fee, within thirty days of

21

this order. Any amended complaint should articulate the “who, what, when, where, and why” of

22

her claim by developing its factual content (such as who endangered her son and how) and the

23

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction (over what is currently pled as a state law claim). Renner’s

24

DKT. #1 - 2

1

Motion [Dkt. #1] is DENIED, and if she does not pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint

2

within thirty days, her case will be DISMISSED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 30th day of May, 2017.

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 - 3