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)

Download PDF
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

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?