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)

Download PDF
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

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?