Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eastside Fundling LLC v. Evans

United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma

March 16, 2015

EASTSIDE FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
WENDELL EVANS and CHERYL DUKE, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING IFP AND REMANDING CASE

ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkts. 1 and 2) and on review of the file. The Court has reviewed the relevant documents on the remainder of the file herein.

This case involves an unlawful detainer action that was filed in Pierce County Superior Court by Eastside Funding LLC against Wendell Evans and Cheryl Duke. Dkt. 1-1.

APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IFP

Standard for Granting Application for IFP.

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 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).

Defendants’ Application to Proceed IFP.

Defendant Cherly Duke states that she receives $1, 951 from social security disability. Dkt. 2. She states that she has around $1, 680 in monthly expenses. Dkt. 2. In his description of “other income” Defendant Wendell Evans states in his IFP application that he receives “disability (gross) 7.20 in only source income.” Dkt. 1, at 1. He reports $500.00 in expenses. Dkt. 1, at 2.

Decision on Application to Proceed IFP.

It appears that Defendants have the income to pay the filing fee in this case. They have made a choice to remove this civil action. While the costs of this action may place a burden on their resources, Defendants appear to have sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Defendants’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkts. 1 and 2) should be denied.

IFP on Appeal.

In the event that Defendants appeal this order, and/or appeals dismissal of this case, IFP status should be denied by this court, without prejudice to Defendants to file with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

REVIEW OF THE FILE

On March 5, 2015, Frank W. Roberson and Effie Roberson removed this case to federal court from Pierce County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. The Notice of Removal states that jurisdiction is based upon federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 1-1, at 2. The Notice of Removal states that “Plaintiff has actually filed a Federal Question Action, ” and that “the Complaint in this action was filed . . . as artful pleading” that “intentionally fails to allege compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1968.” Dkt. 1-1, at 2. The Notice of Removal states that “[t]he Federal Cause of Action in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.