Robinson v. Emerald Queen Casino Hotel et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 11/16/2017 (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. C17-5933 RBL

SHARON ROBINSON,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IFP

v.
EMERALD QUEEN CASINO HOTEL,
et al.

12
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Sharon Robinson’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 1]. Robinson has attached to her IFP application a proposed
complaint against Emerald Queen Casino Hotel and fifteen individual Emerald Queen Casino
employees. Robinson appears to allege Defendants have engaged in employment discrimination,
sexual harassment, and wrongful termination.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court has broad
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.

24

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED 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

If the Court grants a plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court can order the

8

U.S. Marshal’s Service or the Clerk’s Office to serve the summons and complaint on each

9

defendant listed in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Local Rules, W.D. Wash. 4(c); see

10

also Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court, U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash., at

11

22–23 (available at http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se).

12

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

13

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

14

relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

15

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual

16

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

17

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

18

II. ANALYSIS

19

To proceed with her lawsuit without having to pay the required filing fee, Robinson must

20

demonstrate that (1) she has a financial hardship (through a declaration or affidavit of indigency)

21

and (2) that her lawsuit is not frivolous.

22

Robinson’s IFP application suggests that although she is not currently employed,

23

Robinson has a monthly income slightly in excess of her monthly expenses. Robinson’s

24

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 2

1

application indicates that if she saves for two months she will be able to cover the required filing

2

fee. The Court finds that her ability to pay the filing fee is a close question. Even if the Court

3

were inclined to find that Robinson’s financial situation qualifies her for IFP status, the Court

4

must also address whether or not her complaint is frivolous.

5

Much of Robinson’s disjointed complaint appears to revolve around a personal dispute

6

between Robinson and another Emerald Queen Casino employee who was romantically involved

7

with Robinson’s former boyfriend. Construing Robinson’s complaint liberally, she also appears

8

to allege employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and wrongful termination. Although the

9

Court is not prepared at this early juncture to conclude that Robinson’s lawsuit is frivolous, there

10
11

are several deficiencies that preclude the Court from granting Robinson’s IFP application:


Unlike state courts, which are courts of general jurisdiction, federal courts have

12

limited jurisdiction and do not hear cases that are exclusively made up of state law

13

claims. Here, Robinson cites to several state laws that she alleges Defendants have

14

violated (i.e. RCW 51.48.025; RCW 10.14.020; RCW 49.60.040). Robinson,

15

however, fails to articulate the federal statutes, federal treaties, or provisions of the

16

U.S. Constitution that are at issue in this case which would allow this Court to

17

exercise its federal question jurisdiction.

18



Robinson’s complaint does not clearly identify the individual employee defendants.

19

Ten of the fifteen individual defendants are only identified by their first name, or in

20

one case by the physical description “Extra Blonde.” Even if the Court were to grant

21

Robinson’s IFP application, there is insufficient identifying information in the

22

complaint for the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on

23

the individual defendants in order to put them on notice of the lawsuit.

24

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 3

1

Because of these deficiencies, the Court cannot conclude that it has jurisdiction over Robinson’s

2

lawsuit, or that she is indigent and brings non-frivolous claims. Accordingly, Robinson’s

3

application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4

Robinson may either pay the filing fee, or alternatively, she may amend her complaint to

5

correct the deficiencies described by the Court above. If Robinson elects to amend her complaint,

6

she must provide additional information including: (1) what federal laws, treaties, or rights under

7

the U.S. Constitution give this Court jurisdiction over her lawsuit; (2) as much identifying

8

information as possible (i.e. full names) with respect to the individual defendants; and (3)

9

specifically, what acts or misconduct each defendant is alleged to have engaged in. Robinson is

10

encouraged to consult the Pro Se Guide to Filing a Lawsuit in Federal Court. If Robinson makes

11

sufficient amendments to her complaint by December 15, 2017, the Court will reconsider her IFP

12

application.

13
14

III. CONCLUSION


15
16
17

Robinson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.



The Clerk shall send Robinson a copy of this order as well as the Pro Se Guide to
Filing a Lawsuit in Federal Court.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 16th day of November, 2017.

21

A

22

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

20

23

24

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 4