From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartford v. City of Elma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 11, 2016
CASE NO. C15-5927 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. C15-5927 RBL

02-11-2016

IRA RAY HARTFORD IV, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELMA, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hartford's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, [Dkt #s 1 and 4] supported by his proposed complaint [Dkt. #5]. It appears that Plaintiff Hartford is indigent.

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); 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.

Hartford is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under this standard. His 50-page proposed complaint is wholly unintelligible. There is no indication of who is being sued for what conduct, when it occurred, or upon what legal basis. The complaint appears to contain primarily incomplete excerpts from other filings or documents—there are numerous copyright notices interspersed throughout—and most of the sentences and thoughts are not complete or in any logical order. There are vague references to prior proceedings, and perhaps some dissatisfaction with Mr. Hartford's attorney's performance in that earlier case. Indeed, one of the documents is entitled "Request for Appeal" [Dkt. #1-4]. It appears to be dated more than a year ago, and it too is impossible to understand: 11/04/2014

Request for an Appeal or Mistrial

Defendants-attorney (1)showed Court-room Misconduct via' briskly walking north-ward from Defendant's council-court-room-desk, (2)then, when Ms. Defendants-Attorney, who represented the insurance company, thought she was out of judges peripheral vision Ms. Defendants-attorney' gave a quick hand wave type gesture jumped and spun around scoffed and said a horrific noise that had no court-room etiquette of verbal-clarity: while pointing in the direction of Dr. Muscatel's Professional Spreadsheet Pro'forma Projected on Screen. (3)Ms. Defendants-attorney said a short sentence, in disapproval, this action Disrupted jurors attention away from Dr. Muscatel's explanation of damages. (4)This Letter contains facts that need support of Trial-Transcript to show fact of professional misconduct: (5)conduct that are court-room-tactics unfair to Plaintiff's Witness-testimony.

In any event, whatever the import of this paragraph or this claim, this Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions made in state court proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir.2003); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).

The remainder of the Plaintiff's allegations are similar, and are similarly impossible to address, either by the Court or by a defendant. The Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 30 days of the date of this Order, or file a new proposed amended complaint by that date, or the case will be DISMISSED. Any amended complaint should articulate the "who what when where and why" of any claim, identify the parties and the legal basis for any claim, the measure and nature of any damages claimed, and the source of the legal right to those damages. It should address the basis for this Court's jurisdiction over the claims and the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th day of February, 2016.

/s/_________

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hartford v. City of Elma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 11, 2016
CASE NO. C15-5927 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2016)
Case details for

Hartford v. City of Elma

Case Details

Full title:IRA RAY HARTFORD IV, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELMA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Feb 11, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. C15-5927 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2016)