Cook v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 10/16/2017 (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

CASE NO. C17-5795 RBL

DAVID COOK,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER DENYING IFP

v.
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma

15

Pauperis [Dkt. 1]. Cook has attached to his application a proposed complaint against Defendant

16

Federated Mutual Insurance Company (FMIC) seeking $15 million in damages [Dkt. 1-1].

17

Because Cook’s proposed complaint is frivolous, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is

18

DENIED and his complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

19
20

I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

A pro se Plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it

8

must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for

9

relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell

10

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A

11

claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

12

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

13

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

14
15

II. ANALYSIS
Cook’s complaint does not meet this standard. Cook is a notorious fraudster who has

16

previously been identified on the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s “Insurance Fraud

17

Most Wanted” list. See https://www.insurance.wa.gov/news/kreidlers-investigators-arrest-

18

tacoma-man-wanted-fraud-charges (last visited Oct. 13, 2017). Cook has multiple fraud-related

19

convictions and is currently in custody awaiting trial in Pierce County Superior Court on

20

eighteen counts of identity theft, theft, and forgery. See State of Washington v. Cook, Crim. Case

21

No. 17-1-01283-3; see also Cook v. Washington State Ins. Comm’n, No. 3:17-cv-05793-JRC

22

(W.D. Wash. 2017), Dkt. 1-1 at 7–10.

23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 2

Cook’s alleged claims against FMIC appear to relate to an insurance fraud scheme

1
2

stemming from a 2013 car accident, in which Cook submitted fraudulent claims for lost wages

3

and Cook’s nephew falsely claimed that he was a passenger in Cook’s vehicle. The gravamen of

4

Cook’s complaint is that FMIC was responsible for instigating criminal charges against him after

5

learning that Cook had submitted false insurance claims related to the 2013 car accident. See

6

Dkt. 1-1. Cook alleges:

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

Id. at ¶9. Cook seeks a total of $15 million in damages from FMIC, essentially claiming that
FMIC is responsible for his misfortune because they reported his fraudulent insurance claims.
Cook’s complaint seeks $10 million in punitive damages from FMIC for pain and suffering
resulting from the death of his wife and mother-in-law who died in a traffic accident in 2015. Id.
at 5.
Cook’s proposed complaint fails to articulate any plausible theory as to how FMIC’s
reporting of his fraudulent insurance claims, conduct which Cook pled guilty to, makes FMIC
liable for the tragic but unrelated passing of Cook’s family members in a traffic accident. See
State of Washington v. David Arnold Cook, Crim. Case No. 15-1-02875-0. The Court concludes

23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 3

1

that Cook’s complaint is frivolous because it has no arguable substance in law or fact and the

2

Court can draw no reasonable inference that FMIC is liable for the misconduct Cook alleges.

3
4

III. CONCLUSION
For the abovementioned reasons, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 1]

5

is DENIED. The Court determines that granting Cook leave to amend his complaint would be

6

futile as no additional factual assertions would support a plausible cause of action or claim for

7

relief against FMIC. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951

8

(9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

9

Dated this 16th day of October, 2017.

11

A

12

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

10

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 4