Gibbons v. McKenna, et al
Filing
7
ORDER denying 3 renewed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee if he wants this matter to go forward. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 11/2/2012 (DN). (cc to pltf)
<![CDATA[
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
9
ORDER
Plaintiff,
10
(Dkt. #1)
v.
11
12
No. 12-cv-5793-RBL
TODD ROY GIBBONS,
ROBERT MCKENNA, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
Plaintiff has renewed his application to proceed in forma pauperis in a suit alleging
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
medical malpractice. The application states that Plaintiff is homeless and earns between $50 and
$300 per month. The Complaint states that certain medical providers acted negligently in
treating Plaintiff’s spina bifida. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in 2004 Lynn Chapman, a
DSHS representative, referred Plaintiff to Community Healthcare for the Homeless rather than
The Hill Burton Foundation. (Proposed Compl. at 23, Dkt. #4.) The Complaint goes on to make
difficult to follow allegations referring to Plaintiff’s medical records and a conspiracy to cause
financial hardship. The allegations are restricted to generalized facts: for example,
“[Defendants] failed to properly diagnose and treat the Plaintiff.” (Proposed Compl. at 19, Dkt.
#4.)
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
Order - 1
1
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
2
in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
3
action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
4
(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
5
complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
6
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
7
1984).
8
9
The Court cannot grant in forma pauperis. Plaintiff states only that Defendants failed to
meet their standard of care; he does not explain when or how. While the Court provides
10
significant leeway to pro se parties, the Complaint fails to put the proposed Defendants on notice
11
of the factual basis for the suit. No Defendant could possibly draft an answer to such a
12
Complaint. The Court must therefore conclude that the claims as drafted are frivolous. If
13
Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must pay the filing fee.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dated this 2nd day of November 2012.
A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order - 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
