Olsen v. Olsen et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days to pay the filing fee and/or file an amended complaint or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 4/26/2017 (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

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM OLSEN,

CASE NO. C17-5281RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER

10
v.
11
MICHELLE OLSEN, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Olson’s Motion for Leave to proceed in

15 forma pauperis, supported by his proposed complaint. Olson is incarcerated in Walla Walla. He
16 seeks to sue what appear to be family members and everyone who lives in a neighborhood near
17 Lakebay, Washington, for a vast conspiracy to abuse him, repress his memories, and take his
18 property, dating back to at least 1995.
19

This list of those he claims have wronged him is long:

20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 [Dkt. #1] Olson appears to have identified at least some of these names and addresses by using
23 Google Earth and the Pierc e County Assessors website. His claims against at least some of the
24

ORDER - 2

1 defendants appear to be that they were in a position to stop other from harming him and did not.
2 For example:
3
4
5
6
7
8
[Dkt. #1] Olson also alleges that various defendants worked with or for the CIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

24

ORDER - 3

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

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

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

Olson’s claims do not meet this standard, no matter how liberally his claims are

17 construed. The claims are facially time-barred and a decades-long conspiracy of the scope he
18 describes, involving everyone in a given neighborhood, his own entire family and the CIA is not
19 only not plausible, it is frivolous.
20

The Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Olson shall pay the filing fee or

21 file a dramatically different proposed complaint within 21 days of this Order or the matter will be
22
23
24

ORDER - 4

1 dismissed. Any proposed amended complaint should articulate the “who what when where and
2 why” of a plausible, timely claim within this court’s jurisdiction.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 26th day of April, 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

ORDER - 5