Veach v. United States Treasury et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10

SUSANNA VEACH,

CASE NO. C17-5351 BHS
Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES TREASURY,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendant.

11
12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Susanna Veach’s (“Veach”)

14

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1).

15

On May 10, 2017, Veach filed the instant motion and proposed complaint

16

asserting claims to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare and for the treatment

17

she received while filing the motion and complaint. Id.

18

The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

19

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); W.D. Wash.

20

Local Rules LCR 3(b). However, the “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in

21

civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn

22

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has broad discretion in denying

ORDER - 1

1

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.

2

1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963)

3

A federal court may dismiss sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when

4

it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

5

Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may

6

dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be

7

made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). See also Mallard

8

v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court

9

would have the power to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an

10

express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in

11

law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

12

In this case, Veach has failed to meet her burden to show that she is unable to pay

13

the filing fee and her claims, as alleged, are frivolous. To support her unfair treatment

14

claim, she alleges that the court clerk at the Seattle federal courthouse refused to accept

15

her filing fee because she wanted to pay in cash. If Veach possesses the funds necessary

16

to pay the filing fee, then she has failed to show indigency. Regarding the merits of her

17

constitutional claim against ObamaCare, it is nothing more than a generalized grievance,

18

and Veach lacks standing to assert this claim. Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012,

19

1018 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because a generalized grievance is not a particularized injury, a

20

suit alleging only generalized grievances fails for lack of standing.”). Regarding her

21

allegations against the adverse treatment she received, Veach fails to name an appropriate

22

party and fails to identify the appropriate statute for actions against agencies of the

ORDER - 2

1

federal government. Therefore, the Court DENIES her motion and DISMISSES her

2

claims. The Clerk shall close this case.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 16th day of May, 2017.

5
6

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3