From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strick v. City of Yelm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Mar 29, 2016
CASE NO. C16-5230 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 29, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. C16-5230 RBL

03-29-2016

ANDREW STRICK, Petitioner, v. CITY OF YELM, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DKT. #1

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Strick's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #1]. Strick sues the City of Yelm, Washington, alleging city employees improperly arrested him and falsified evidence.

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); 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, 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.

Strick's conclusory complaint does not articulate a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. His Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #1] is therefore DENIED. He shall pay the filing fee or submit a proposed amended complaint addressing this deficiency within 30 days, or the case will be dismissed without further notice. Any amended complaint need not be long, but it does have to articulate sufficient facts to support a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 29th day of March, 2016.

/s/_________

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Strick v. City of Yelm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Mar 29, 2016
CASE NO. C16-5230 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 29, 2016)
Case details for

Strick v. City of Yelm

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW STRICK, Petitioner, v. CITY OF YELM, Respondent.

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

Date published: Mar 29, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. C16-5230 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 29, 2016)