Obrecht v. City of Tacoma

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice; plaintiff has 30 days to amend his complaint; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/20/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

BRIAN D. OLBRECHT,

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-5534 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

CITY OF TACOMA,
Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Olbrecht’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

15

in Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #1]. Olbrecht is homeless and claims the City of Tacoma has enacted

16

an ordinance that targets the homeless by limiting where they may camp.

17

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

18

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad

19

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

20

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Olbrecht has sufficiently demonstrated his indigency. He resides in Tacoma and only

5

receives $855.00 for disability, unemployment, workers compensation, or public assistance each

6

month. He avers that he has no savings or property, and only $1,000 in cash.

7

The Court cannot assess the frivolity (or lack thereof) of Olbrecht’s claims, however,

8

because his complaint lacks sufficient detail to put the Court and the City of Tacoma on notice of

9

his claims and grounds for relief. Olbrecht’s allegation that the City is targeting the homeless

10

might warrant judicial review and intervention, but he neglects to describe his legal claim for

11

relief. See e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8. He should amend his complaint to include a short and plain

12

statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction and to develop the “who what when where

13

and why” of his facts more fully.

14

Olbrecht’s application as it stands is DENIED, without prejudice. He shall have 30 days

15

to amend his complaint to articulate a (proper) basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated this 20th day of July, 2017.

19

A

20

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

18

21

22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IFP WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - 2