RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Franklin Gibson's application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to consolidate his action with an unfiled claim of James Edward Norris. For the reasons set forth below, the Court must deny both the application and the motion.
A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
The Plaintiff's Complaint centers on events that took place in the late 1980's and early 1990's at the Federal Aviation Administration District Offices in Los Angeles and Fresno and at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. Mr. Gibson resides in Reno, Nevada. The Complaint is time-barred and filed in the wrong venue. The Court must conclude that the proposed Complaint lacks merit on its face. The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #1] and the Motion to Consolidate [Dkt. #2] are DENIED.
Further, because of the inherent flaws in this claim, the Court will dismiss it sua sponte if the Plaintiff pays the filing fee and attempts to bring ...