Brinkman v. Social Security Administration Headquarters et al

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

DAN BRINKMAN,

CASE NO. C17-5661 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
HEADQUARTERS, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA
SPONTE

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dan Brinkman’s (“Brinkman”)
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1), and motion
for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 1-3).
On August 21, 2017, Brinkman filed the instant motions and proposed complaint
alleging a massive government conspiracy intended to wrong Brinkman and his wife. Id.
The alleged conspiracy started during the Clinton administration and continued through
the Bush and Obama administrations. Id. Although this is Brinkman’s first pro se
complaint in this Court, he has filed several pro se complaints in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. See Brinkman v. IRS, et al., Case #: 3:13-cv-

ORDER - 1

1

01434-SI (D. Or.); Brinkman v. Ross, et al., Case #: 3:11-cv-00489-HZ (D. Or.);

2

Brinkman v. Grant, et al., Case # 3:11-cv-00118-BR (D. Or.); Brinkman v. Leatherwood,

3

et al., Case # 3:10-cv-01133-KI (D. Or.); Brinkman v. Liberty Tax Service, et al., 3:10-

4

cv-00192-HU (D. Or.). Most of these cases were dismissed sua sponte, and none of the

5

complaints survived a motion to dismiss. The instant complaint is similarly flawed.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Here, Brinkman’s in forma pauperis

13

application shows that he is unable to prepay fees and costs. See Dkt. 1.

14

However, even if a plaintiff satisfies the financial requirements for eligibility to

15

proceed in forma pauperis, the Court’s review of the application and underlying

16

complaint is not complete. Under the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss

17

the case sua sponte if it determines at any time that (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue,

18

(2) the action is frivolous or malicious, (3) the complaint fails to state a viable claim, or

19

(3) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Jackson v. State of

21

Arizona, 885 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1989). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an

22

ORDER - 2

1

arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Lopez v. Dep’t of Health

2

Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1991); Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640..

3

In this case, Brinkman’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. While it

4

seems that the trigger for Brinkman’s filing was the denial of his social security benefits,

5

Brinkman must exhaust his administrative remedies before challenging the denial in this

6

Court. More importantly, the denial of such benefits does not form a factual basis for a

7

federal and multi-state government conspiracy to harm Brinkman. Simply put,

8

Brinkman’s allegations are not plausible on their face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

9

678 (2009). Therefore, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES Brinkman’s complaint,

10

DENIES his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and DENIES his motion to appoint

11

counsel. The Clerk shall close this case.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated this 24th day of August, 2017.

A

14
15

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3