Hopkins v. Doe

Full title: DENNIS R. HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, et al, Defendants

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Apr 21, 2007

Case No. C08-5100RBL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. C08-5100RBL.

April 21, 2007

ORDER

RONALD LEIGHTON, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

This application and proposed complaint is another in a recent string of filings by plaintiff. See C07-5621RBL, C07-5638RBL and C07-5672RBL. The applications to proceed in forma pauperis, signed under the penalty of perjury, all differ materially in plaintiff's statements about his income. Because this Court cannot rely on plaintiff's sworn declarations as being truthful, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. See Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9^th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963) (the court has broad discretion in determining an application to proceed in forma pauperis). The plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this Order to pay the filing fee or this case will be DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.