United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP
B. Leighton United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff West's
application to proceed in forma pauperis, supported
by her proposed complaint [Dkt. #1]. These cases are two of
at least six she has filed in this district this year,
all of which appear to be substantially similar to each other
and to two putative class action cases she filed last year,
West v. Mabus, Cause Nos. C16-5191RBL and
C16-5204RBL. The latter two were dismissed because West is
not an attorney and cannot represent a class.
has paid the filing fee in four of her current cases, but
seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in two: West
v. Stackley, C17-5367RBL and West v. Stackley,
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).
pro se plaintiff's complaint is to be construed
liberally, but like any other complaint it must nevertheless
contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim for relief
is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
West's pending proposed complaints appear to arise out of
the same facts, though it is not at all clear what those
facts are. She seeks to sue the Secretary of the Navy, but
each of her complaints allege that an EEOC ALJ is violating
West's rights and perhaps engaging some sort of
misconduct. Cause No. C17-5367RBL complains about Virginia
MaGee, while Cause No. C17-5368RBL asserts the exact same
complaints about Robert Barnhart: This is an action for
ongoing reprisal by EEOC Administrative Judge Virginia M.
MaGee who abuses her position in order to obstruct the
judicial power entrusted in her to discriminate and
diminished the ability of Joe Ann West to prove her complaint
EEOC Administrative Judge Virginia M. MaGee is trading
"Decisions of Dismissal" with the Department of
Defense -Department of the Navy's agents to dismiss
complaints against the EEOC, EEOC Administrative Judge
Virginia M. MaGee has/is in violation of the Ex Parte Clause,
the Right to know opposing evidence, opportunity to be
represented of the EEOC MD-110 and Federal laws. Violation of
the Privacy Act of 1974. Violation of the Dual Process under
the Constitution of the United States. Violation of the
Carolyn Jenkin Act of July 9, 2015. Violation the No Fear Act
of 2002. Violation of the 5" Amendment Violation of the
14* Amendment. Violation of the Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination Act of 2015 aka HJR. 1557. Violation of
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), Violation of 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 1 Sub Chapter B PART 334, 5 U.S.C. § 2302, 5
U.F.C. 300.103. Violation of the Title VH Civil Right Act of
1964 (Title VU) § 704, §2000e-3 (a). Violation of
the Title VII Civil Right Act of 1964 as amended 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e- [Cause No. C17-5367RBL, Dkt. #1]
allegations do not meet the in forma pauperis
standard. First, it is not clear who West is suing, or why.
It appears that there is some ongoing EEOC process that she
does not like, but there is no indication that this is an
appeal of some underlying decision, or that the
administrative process that is a prerequisite for suing here
is complete. Furthermore, and in any event, the complaint is
largely a list of statutes and conclusory allegations. There
is no coherent set of facts that support a plausible claim
for relief against any party, much less the only named party.
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
West v. Stackley, C17-5367RBL and West v.
Stackley, C17-5368RBL is DENIED.
the Court would permit the plaintiff an opportunity to amend
her complaint to cure these defects and articulate a
plausible claim, even if it unlikely that she could do so.
Here, however, all six of West's current cases in the
District are essentially identical, and West has articulated
no basis for trying six identical lawsuits over one set of
facts. These two cases are redundant, as well as fatally
v. Stackley, C17-5367RBL and West v. Stackley,
C17-5368RBL are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice to
asset the claims in them in one of the remaining cases.
 The six pending case are: