United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE
J. BRYAN United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1), and on review
of the proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1). The Court has
considered the application and the remainder of the file
April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil rights
complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying
the filing fee for a civil case. Dkt. 1
for Granting Application for IFP.
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). A district
court may 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.
Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113
(9th Cir. 1998), quoting Tripati v. First
Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
Application to Proceed IFP.
states that he is a prisoner and has received $44.27 in
income over the last 12 months. Dkt. 1. He indicates that he
has a little over $200.00 in a savings account, and has land
he inherited that he values at $3.52. Id. Plaintiff
states that he has no expenses. Id.
of the Complaint.
court has carefully reviewed the complaint in this matter.
Because plaintiff filed this complaint pro se, the
court has construed the pleadings liberally and has afforded
plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v.
Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th
proposed complaint, Plaintiff discusses the circumstances of
his adoption by the Defendant. Dkt. 1-1. He indicates that he
feels harassed and threatened by Defendant, even though he is
now an adult. Dkt. 1-1. As relief, he requests that the Court
“nullify” his adoption file and take it
“off [his] record so that it does not show
anymore.” Dkt. 1-1, at 5. Plaintiff also seeks damages
of one half of Defendant's “financial account for
as long as she has been able to prove she has adopted [him]
in King County, court, or from the day [he] was adopted until
the day [he] had become an adult.” Id.
filed his proposed complaint citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Dkt. 1-1. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a complaint must allege that (1) the conduct complained
of was committed by a person acting under color of state law,
and that (2) the conduct deprived a person of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,
535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels
v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Section 1983 is the
appropriate avenue to remedy an alleged wrong only if both of
these elements are present. Haygood v. Younger, 769
F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986). To state a civil rights
claim, a plaintiff must set forth the specific factual bases
upon which he claims each defendant is liable. Aldabe v.
Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).
Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in
a civil rights violations are not sufficient to support a
claim under § 1983. Ivey v. Board of Regents,
673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982).
has failed to allege that the Defendant was a state actor
when she committed the acts of which he complains. Further,
Plaintiff has not articulated “a right, privilege, or
immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States” that has been violated. Parratt, at
535. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be raised sua
sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). A federal court
must have subject matter jurisdiction, which can be
established by either the existence of a federal question or
complete diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
1332. A court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction
until a plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994);
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d
1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).
is no showing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
in this case. Plaintiff does not identify a federal claim
upon which he is seeking relief, so the Court does not have
federal question jurisdiction. Further, the Plaintiff and
Defendant have Washington addresses, and so appear to be
citizens of the State of Washington. Accordingly, the Court
does not have diversity of citizenship subject matter
jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff makes state law claims,
the claims should also be dismissed without prejudice.
Because the Court does not have original jurisdiction, it
does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims. See Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy