Tillis v. Boeing Employee Credit Union et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff has 21 days in which to pay the filing fee and/or file an amended complaint consistent with this order, or this matter will be dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10
11
12

CASE NO. C18-5512 RBL

EARL TILLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOEING EMPLOYEE CREDIT
UNION,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

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

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Tillis’s Motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, supported by his proposed complaint. Tillis seeks to sue BECU, he identifies an
amount in controversy of $9950, and he references the interpleader statute. But he has alleged no
facts surrounding the dispute— the “who what when where and why” of a plausible claim, over
which this court has jurisdiction.
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

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Tillis has not met this standard. He cites the interpleader statute, but does not otherwise

18

attempt to state a claim. His motion for leave to proceed IFP is therefore DENIED. Tillis must

19

pay the filing fee or file a proposed amended complaint within 21 days or this matter will be

20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2

1

dismissed. The complaint should identify the parties and the claim or dispute he is asking the

2

court to resolve, consistent with this Order.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 28th day of June, 2018.

5
6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

8

9
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 - 3