Opinion
CASE NO. C13-5439 BHS
06-11-2013
ROBIN M. REITZ, Plaintiff, v. FRED MEYER STORE AND OWNERS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, AND DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robin Reitz's ("Reitz") motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), proposed complaint, and motion to appoint attorney (Dkt. 2). On June 6, 2013, Reitz filed the instant motions and proposed complaint alleging that two deli workers at one of Defendant's stores allowed an unknown person to steal Reitz's personal laptop. Dkt. 1-1 at 1-2. Based on these allegations, Reitz asserts a claim under the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and two tort claims for personal injury and injury to property. Dkt. 1-3. On June 10, 2013, Reitz filed an incomprehensible amendment to the proposed complaint. Dkt. 4.
The 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). However, the "privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances." Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963).
A federal court may dismiss sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief."). See also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
In this case, Reitz has failed to meet his burden to proceed in forma pauperis with the proposed complaint because Reitz's proposed complaint is frivolous. First, there is no arguable basis in law or fact for a claim under the ADA based on the factual allegations of computer theft while shopping at Defendant's store. Second, there is no arguable basis in law for the proposition that Defendant's employees owed Reitz a duty to protect his personal property while shopping at Defendant's store. Finally, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter because there is no federal question and there is no arguable basis that the amount in controversy will exceed the jurisdictional limit despite Reitz claiming that he seeks four million dollars as compensatory and punitive damages.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Reitz's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISSES Reitz's complaint sua sponte, and DENIES Reitz's motion to appoint counsel. The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge