Enslow v. Washington State

Filing 6

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/16/2018 (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

ZACHARY ENSLOW,

CASE NO. C18-5078RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER DENYING IFP

v.
WASHINGTON STATE,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff Enslow’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in

15

forma pauperis, supported by his proposed complaint. [Dkt. #s 1 and 4]. This is Enslow’s third

16

attempt to sue the State and various state employees for what he claims was unconstitutional pre-

17

trial incarceration in 2015. Enslow was ultimately acquitted.

18

He first sued in 2016 (Enslow v Washington, Cause No. 16-cv-5497RBL). He filed three

19

complaints but none stated a plausible claim and the matter was dismissed without prejudice.

20

[See Dkt. #s 12 and 15 in that case.] He sued again in 2017 (Enslow v. Washington, Cause No.

21

17-cv-5031RBL), and his IFP application was denied for failure to state a plausible claim, even

22

after he filed three complaints in that case. The Court Ordered Enslow to file an additional

23
24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 1

1

amended complaint addressing various deficiencies within 21 days, but he did not do so. The

2

cased was dismissed, again without prejudice. [See Dkt. #s 14 and 15 in that case.]

3
4

Enslow has now filed a third case, claiming that he was “enslaved” and wrongly
incarcerated:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

[Dkt. #1 at 5]
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.
1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action
is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.
1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint
is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778
F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”)

12

Enslow’s current (at least seventh) attempt to articulate a claim meeting this plausibility

13

standard does not do so, as a matter of law. He has not addressed any of the deficiencies pointed

14

out in his prior cases. The fact that he was acquitted is not enough to plausibly claim that his

15

arrest or pretrial incarceration was unconstitutional or otherwise actionable. He has not named or

16

sued any individual, or described any set of facts amounting to a plausible claim against any

17

unnamed individual. He has not plausibly stated a claim against “the state” under §1983 or

18

otherwise for what he presumably claims are violations committed against him by “persons”

19

acting under color of state law.

20

The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED. Enslow shall

21

pay the filing fee or submit a proposed amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within

22

21 days or this matter will be dismissed. Any amended complaint should address the “who what

23

when where why and how” of his claim, including the claimed deficiencies in the investigation

24

ORDER DENYING IFP - 3

1

and prosecution. Enslow’s proposed complaints in his prior cases were more detailed that the

2

bare bones one he has filed here, but they were also insufficient, for the reasons outlined in the

3

Orders denying in forma pauperis status in those cases.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 16th day of March, 2018.

7

A

8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6

9

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

ORDER DENYING IFP - 4