Mason v. Mason

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-5289

TATYANA MASON,
9
Plaintiff,
10

v.

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

JOHN MASON,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Tatyana Mason’s amended motion for

15

leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #11]. Plaintiff sues her ex-husband, Defendant John

16

Mason, to enforce the I-864 Affidavit of Support he signed when Mason entered the country in

17

1999. She asks the Court to award her $499,926.50 for John’s delinquent payments since that

18

time.

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 Cir.

23

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

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d

5

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

6

A pro se’s complaint is liberally construed, but like any other complaint it must

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

11

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

12

at 678.

13

Mason once again provides—in extensive detail—her financial difficulties, but does not

14

address the shortcomings in her first IFP application. Mason has yet to address why federal court

15

is the appropriate forum for this claim. Nor does she acknowledge or address the fact that she

16

currently has three pending Washington State Court appeals apparently concerning this same

17

issue. The Court told Mason in its prior Order that those proceedings prevented the court from

18

considering this case:

19
20
21
22
23

This Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions made in state court. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district
court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005).
[W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal district court
asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court
and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a
forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003);
Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS - 2

1
2
3
4
5

This is a trial court, not an appellate court, and it is a court of limited jurisdiction.
To state a claim here, the plaintiff must identify an actual claim, and identify both
the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over the claim, and its jurisdiction over the
parties.
[Dkt. #5].
Mason’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Because Mason cannot cure

6

the existence of the other cases by amending her complaint a third time, the case is dismissed with

7

prejudice.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
Dated this 29th day of August, 2017.
13

A

14

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

15

16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS - 3