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.

Randall v. Fulcrum Real Estate Services, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

August 3, 2017

ROY V. RANDALL, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
FULCRUM REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

          ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge.

         This 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 relevant record and the remainder of the file herein.

         On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the $400 filing fee for a civil case. Dkts. 1-1 and 1.

         Plaintiff's proposed complaint asserts that since April of 2015, he requested that the Defendant's employees give him the “reasonable accommodation” of “unfettered access” to get his bicycle to his basement apartment. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff maintains that he is a disabled veteran. Id. He states that he had that access in his third floor apartment. Id. Plaintiff alleges that “the only accommodation that would allow unfettered access is a key to the elevator allowing access to the basement apartment.” Id. Plaintiff states that each of the Defendant's employees “refused [his] reasonable accommodations.Id. Plaintiff asserts that after his basement apartment flooded twice, the “decision was made to do the repair work on their own, ” and “they were seeking to force me to surrender [his] basement apartment.” Id. Plaintiff states that he was forcefully evicted in July of 2017. Id. Plaintiff's proposed complaint references “Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, ” and § “804b or f” and “804f3B.” Id. As relief, Plaintiff states that he is seeking (1) “pain and suffering for two years plus of being deprived of full use of [his] bicycle, ” (2) “appropriate punishment for denial of [his] reasonable accommodation, ” (3) “punishment for the forcible eviction” and “ensuing homeless situation, ” (4) damages, (5) injunctive relief of suspension of Defendant's “license to practice Real Estate, ” and (6) “Defendant business practices he studied for further Civil Rights Discrimination violations.” Id.

         Plaintiff makes the same or similar allegations in this case as he does in a case Plaintiff recently filed against Defendant's current and former employees in Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB. In that case, Plaintiff he alleges that since April of 2015, he requested the “reasonable accommodation” of “unfettered access” to get his bicycle to his basement apartment. Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 3, at 2. He states that he had that access in his third floor apartment. Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 3, at 2. Plaintiff alleges that “the only accommodation that would allow unfettered access is a key to the elevator allowing access to the basement apartment.” Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 3, at 2. Plaintiff states that each of the individuals he names as defendants have “refused [his] reasonable accommodations.Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 3, at 2. Plaintiff's complaint in that case references “Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, ” § “8046” and “80463B.” Id. As relief, Plaintiff seeks (1) a key to the elevator, (2) pain and suffering for having to carry his belongings by hand because he did not have access to his bike, (3) “appropriate punishment for denial of [his] reasonable accommodation for the two years plus, ” (4) Defendants cease all efforts to evict him, and (5) training for Defendants. Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 3. His application for IFP was granted on July 10, 2017. Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB, Dkt. 4. The Parodi Defendants have not yet appeared.

         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).

         Plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP.

         Plaintiff states that he has income of $995.00 per month in “disability, unemployment, workers compensation, or public assistance.” Dkt. 1. He indicates he has $50 in cash and checking, no other assets or dependents, and has $600 in monthly expenses. Id.

         Decision on IFP Application.

         Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP (Dkt. 1) should be granted. Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he is unable to pay the filing fee.

         Order to Show Cause.

         The allegations in this case and in Randal v. Parodi, et al, Western District of Washington case number 17-5425 RJB are the same or similar; this case involves a corporate defendant and Parodi involves the individual employees. On or before August 11, 2017, Plaintiff should be ordered to show cause, in writing, if any he has, why this case and Randal v. ...


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.