Hopkins v. Warren

Full title: DENNIS R HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES E WARREN, et al., Defendant.

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2013

CASE NO. C13-6000 RBL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. C13-6000 RBL

12-23-2013

DENNIS R HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES E WARREN, et al., Defendant.

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

ORDER DENYING AMENDED

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

[Dkt. #3]

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hopkins' Amended Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Dkt. #3] The Court denied the Plaintiff's initial application without prejudice because the Plaintiff's first proposed complaint did not, and likley could not, allege that the defendants—his landlord and the owner of his apartment, whom he claimed illegally evicted him and stole his property while he was in the hospital—were "state actors" for purposes of his proposed constitutional claims.

A plaintiff cannot assert a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim [for violation his constitutional rights] against any defendant who is not a state actor. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). This determination is made using a two-part test: (1) "the deprivation must . . . be caused by the exercise of some right or a privilege created by the government or a rule of conduct imposed by the government;" and (2) "the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a governmental actor." Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9^th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiffs' lengthy and repetitive complaint consistently alleges that his landlord and the owner of his apartment building violated a variety of his constitutional rights. He does not allege that these defendants are governmental employees or that they can remotely be construed as acting on behalf of any government or governmental agency. Instead, they appear to be private individuals with whom Mr. Hopkins has a landlord tenant dispute. The proposed constitutional claims against these defendants are not cognizable—they are not valid— as a matter of law.

The amended application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file a second amended proposed complaint within 15 days of this order, or the matter will be dismissed. If the filing fee is paid, and Plaintiff seeks to file the amended complaint attached to his amended application [Dkt. #3], that facially deficient complaint may be dismissed by the court on its own motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE