West v. Spencer

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ; this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without leave to amend; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/2/2018 (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. C17-6026RBL

JOE ANN WEST,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

RICHARD V SPENCER, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Joe Ann West’s Motion for Leave to

15

proceed in forma pauperis, supported by her proposed complaint [Dkt. # 1]. West has now filed

16

12 cases in this District in the past two years. 11 of them name the Secretary of the Navy as the

17

sole defendant; the other named Attorney General Sessions. Each relates loosely to West’s

18

employment at the Naval Shipyard at Bremerton (and her termination from that employment).

19

West repeatedly alludes to EEOC procedure(s) but she has yet to describe them1. Each complaint

20

is based on the same general, lengthy, and difficult to read set of facts and accusations, and most

21
22
23
24

1
The government suggests in a related case that one of West’s EEOC proceedings dates to 2008, making any claims
based on it facially time barred.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

1

name the same people and parties. Though each is slightly different, they are all essentially the

2

same and the all arise from the same set of facts.

3

Eight of the first nine2 cases were dismissed. One remains open, with a Motion to

4

Dismiss pending3. [See West v. Spencer Cause No. 17-5510RBL]. In December 2017, West filed

5

three more cases against the Secretary. In two of the new cases, including this one, she also

6

names the Acting Chair of the EEOC, Victoria Lipnic.
The “new” claim in West’s 21-page proposed complaint in this case relates to “deliberate

7
8

ongoing retaliation of protected activities.” West’s complaint is difficult to read, and it is not

9

clear what she is complaining about:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2

The first nine cases are:
West v. Mabus, C16-5191RBL,
West v. Mabus, C16-5204RBL,
West v. Stackley, C17-5246RBL,
West v. Stackley, C17-5273RBL,
West v. Stackley, C17-5366RBL,
West v. Stackley, C17-5367RBL,
West v. Stackley, C17-5368RBL,
West v. Sessions, C17-5426RBL, and
West v. Spencer, C17-5510RBL.

3
The Secretary filed a Motion for a Bar Order in one of the earlier cases, which is technically no longer pending
(due to the dismissal) but which the Court will consider separately, given West’s apparent determination to
repeatedly file frivolous claims in this District.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

[DKt/ #1 at 1-2]
Nevertheless, the words and accusations are similar to those she has used in her other

13

complaints, including a portion of complaints she filed the same day, in West v. Spencer, Cause

14

No. 17-cv-6024RBL, and West v. Spencer, Cause No. 17-cv-6025RBL. West repeats her

15

complaints about the EEOC process she apparently went through as an employee, which has

16

been featured in each of her dozen complaints. In any event, West asserts Title VII claims based

17

on sex (and possibly race, and possibly mental impairment) discrimination, retaliation, and

18

“disparate treatment.”

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

12

West’s complaint does not and cannot meet this plausibility standard. Even if she had not

13

already repeatedly attempted to assert claims based on the same factual background in a dozen

14

largely duplicative actions, the complaint does not remotely state a viable, plausible claim

15

against either Spencer or Lipnic—she does not allege that either of them actually did anything,

16

and the various people she does identify are not defendants.

17

West has not plausibly plead a Title VII claim against anyone. Despite its length, this

18

complaint (like all of her others) fails to articulate any fact upon which a viable discrimination

19

claim could be based. She claims she is a disabled African-American female, and it can be

20

inferred that she was terminated, but there is no allegation of when or why, or how her race color

21

sex age or disability was the basis for her termination, or why these claims are not barred by the

22

dismissal of apparently identical ones in the past. Furthermore, West seems to suggest that she is

23

planning to assert a class action, though she recognizes that she cannot represent a class pro se.

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 4

1

Her complain includes a variety of claims and complaints and allegations by and about the

2

treatment of others in the Navy (again with no context and no discernable relation to West).

3

These are not plausible claims made by West in support of her claims against Spencer or Lipnic.

4

Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint

5

in order to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995

6

(9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo

7

review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). But there is no reason to do

8

so in this case.

9

West has filed 12 substantially similar cases (and in those cases, more than 100 motions),

10

all based on variations of the same basic set of underlying facts: she was terminated, she went

11

through an administrative process, she lost, and she failed to timely file a lawsuit in this Court.

12

See, for example, West v Stackley, Cause No. 17-cv-5246RBL at Dkt. # 47 (dismissing a similar

13

claim with prejudice and without leave to amend). Indeed, West’s complaint in this case suggests

14

at the very end that it “could have been consolidated with 17-cv-5246.” [Dkt. # 1-1 at 36] But

15

that case was dismissed with prejudice before this case was filed. The dismissal of this case (and

16

others) is already on appeal.

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 5

1

There is nothing that West could add or alter in yet another bite at the apple that would

2

cure the fatal defects outlined above in various prior Orders in numerous prior cases. Her Motion

3

for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and West’s claims in this matter are

4

DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2018.

8

A

9

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

7

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 6