Opinion
CASE NO. C16-5191 RBL
03-18-2016
JOE ANN WEST, Plaintiff, v. RAY MABUS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP DKT. #1
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Joe Ann West's application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1]. West is an African American former female employee of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. She asks the Court to appoint her "agent" of a class of similarly-situated African American women, alleging that the Shipyard's use of the USAJob's website unfairly favors white males.
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).
The Court does not deny in forma pauperis status lightly, especially where a Plaintiff alleges racial discrimination. However, as a non-attorney, West cannot represent her putative class members. See Bradvica v. Terhune, 198 F.3d 253 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying non-attorney plaintiff IFP status because he could not represent class members).
Therefore, West's application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1] is DENIED. She may amend her application to assert claims only on her own behalf, or she may pay the filing fee. Either must occur within 30 days of this order, or the case will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge