Enslow v. Washington State
Filing
8
ORDER denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 21 days of this Order or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 8/23/2018 (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
9
ZACHARY ENSLOW,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
CASE NO. C18-5078 RBL
ORDER
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 a slightly revised proposed amended complaint. Enslow continues
16
to claim that he was arrested in Portland for arson, attempted murder and reckless endangerment,
17
and jailed there and in Thurston County for six months before trial. He claims was acquitted on
18
all charges but he does not provide a case name or number. Enslow claims that state and local
19
officials violated all twenty seven of his constitutional rights. He seeks to sue Oregon,
20
Washington, the Thurston County prosecutor, the Thurston County jail, Washington’s attorney
21
general, and perhaps others. He seeks $100,000,000 in compensation.
22
23
Enslow’s complaint is based primarily on the fact that he was acquitted at trial. He claims
the fact he won is evidence that he was unconstitutionally charged. But despite the numerous
24
ORDER - 1
1
efforts to articulate how or why any defendant violated his rights, he points out that his attorney
2
successfully cross examined all of the witnesses against him.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
3
4
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
5
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
6
actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
7
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
8
in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed [pleading] that the
9
action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
10
(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
11
complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
12
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
13
1984).
14
A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it
15
must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for
16
relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell
17
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A
18
claim for relief is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
19
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
20
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
21
Enslow has filed at least three cases (each with at least two proposed complaints) all
22
arising out of this same incident and all based on the same conclusory allegations. It remains true
23
that Enslow’s acquittal does not by itself state a plausible constitutional claim. It certainly does
24
ORDER - 2
1
not support a broad, vague claim that each participant in his arrest and prosecution violated his
2
rights under all 27 constitutional amendments.
3
4
Enslow’s latest effort does not meet the Iqbal plausibility standard, and he has not met
the standard for proceeding in forma pauperis. His Motion for Leave to so proceed is DENIED.
5
Enslow shall pay the filing fee within 21 days or this matter will be dismissed.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2018.
7
8
A
9
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?