Opinion
CASE NO. C18-5078 RBL
08-23-2018
ZACHARY ENSLOW, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE, Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Enslow's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, supported by a slightly revised proposed amended complaint. Enslow continues to claim that he was arrested in Portland for arson, attempted murder and reckless endangerment, and jailed there and in Thurston County for six months before trial. He claims was acquitted on all charges but he does not provide a case name or number. Enslow claims that state and local officials violated all twenty seven of his constitutional rights. He seeks to sue Oregon, Washington, the Thurston County prosecutor, the Thurston County jail, Washington's attorney general, and perhaps others. He seeks $100,000,000 in compensation.
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 efforts to articulate how or why any defendant violated his rights, he points out that his attorney successfully cross examined all of the witnesses against him.
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 [pleading] 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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
A pro se plaintiff's complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Enslow has filed at least three cases (each with at least two proposed complaints) all arising out of this same incident and all based on the same conclusory allegations. It remains true that Enslow's acquittal does not by itself state a plausible constitutional claim. It certainly does not support a broad, vague claim that each participant in his arrest and prosecution violated his rights under all 27 constitutional amendments.
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.
Enslow shall pay the filing fee within 21 days or this matter will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2018.
/s/_________
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge