Opinion
C23-6006 BHS
12-05-2023
TIFFANY RECINOS, Plaintiff, v. ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Tiffany Recinos's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, supported by her proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 4-1. As she has in most of the 35 other cases she has filed in this District this year, Recinos seeks $3.25 million. Id. at 4. She does so in an apparent effort to meet the $75,000 “amount in controversy” required for this Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But she does not address the parties' diversity of citizenship, and instead affirmatively asserts that, like her, each defendant is a citizen of Washington. Id.
Recinos alleges that in 2010, while she worked at St. Joseph's hospital, her exhusband attempted to murder her. She claims she should have received L&I benefits for her resulting injuries and diseases. Id.
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). A person is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if they are unable to pay the costs of filing and still provide the necessities of life. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (internal quotations omitted).
Even if a plaintiff is indigent, 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 & Tr., 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.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.
Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint in order to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”).
Recinos has failed to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. She has not asserted and could not assert a federal claim for Washington State L&I benefits, and the parties are all citizens of Washington.
Furthermore, and in any event, by Recinos's own account, her claims accrued in 2010. They are facially time-barred. There is nothing Recinos could change or add, consistent with the allegations she has already made, that would state a plausible claim in this Court. Recinos's claims are without merit as a matter of law.
Recinos's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court will not entertain further filings in this case, other than a notice of appeal.
The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.