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.

Wheeler v. Pierce County Correction Center

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

September 27, 2017

BOBBY WHEELER, Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER, Defendant.

          ORDER RENOTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          ROBERT J. BRYAN, United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 3) and on review of the proposed complaint (Dkt. 1). The Court has considered the application and the remainder of the file herein.

         On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil rights complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the $400 filing fee. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff was notified by the Clerk of the Court that his IFP application was insufficient. Dkt. 2. Plaintiff has now filed the proper form. Dkt. 3.

         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). 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 Cir. 1987)).

         Review of the Complaint.

         The Court has carefully reviewed the proposed 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 Cir.1988).

         The proposed complaint names the Pierce County, Washington Corrections Center (“jail') as the Defendant. Dkt. 1. Other than stating, “no other defendants are involved, ” (Dkt. 1, at 3), Plaintiff does not plead any facts or request any relief in his proposed complaint. Dkt. 1. He attached a form to the proposed complaint entitled “Claim for Damages - Pierce County.” Dkt. 1. In this “Claim for Damages” form, Plaintiff asserts that “doctors came to the jail performed 2 surgeries then after multiple complaints that my finger was injured, they ignored my complaint and said that I was asulanated [sic], ignore me, then rushed me to Tac-General Hosp. for emerg. surgery for 7 days.” Dkt. 1, at 5. Plaintiff then states they “then sent me back with a pic [sic] line IV back to jail with population.” Id. To his proposed complaint, Plaintiff also attaches a Washington State Department of Heath form entitled, “Health Care Providers and Facilities Complaint Form.” Dkt. 1, at 7-9. In this form, when asked to describe his complaint, Plaintiff contends that:

I requested several times for medical attention. I kept complaining about my finger, felt like it was falling off. Took 2 mos. To get medical attn. They did 2 surgeries in corr. fac. then noticed how bad the injuries were, then took me to Tac. General had surg. there, after 6-7 days they released me back to corr. fac. with pic line IV in a corr. ctr. that it could have gotten worse because of the place they put me back in. It all stemed [sic] from them saying they didn't take me serious and the condition was bad, because they were talking about amputation of finger because they waited to [sic] long and the infection got in my joint and blood stream.

Dkt. 1, at 9.

         From the proposed complaint, the Court cannot fully determine whether it has jurisdiction, the basis of the claim[s], or what relief the Plaintiff wants. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a):

         A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs ...

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.