United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
TASI Q. CADIZ, Plaintiff,
MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Cadiz's Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, supported by
his proposed complaint [Dkt. # 1] Cadiz seeks to sue
Multicare for breach of contract negligence
harassment/retaliation and civil rights violations. It
appears he also seeks to represent a class of similarly
situated persons. The basis for Cadiz's claims is not at
all clear from his complaint. It appears that he was using a
Multicare restroom near its emergency room when someone
opened the door, exposing him. He was ultimately asked to
rest of the 44-page complaint is filled with conclusory
statements about Multicare's obligations and intentions,
filled with adjectives and legal citations, but no facts.
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.
the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to
amend their complaint in order to state a plausible claim.
See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d
984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to
amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review,
that the complaint could not be saved by any
proposed complaint does not meet this plausibility standard.
He has not identified any individual who did anything to him,
or explained why what they did violated any of his
contractual or constitutional or other rights, or how it
amounted to actionable discrimination.
a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his
own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. McShane v.
United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.1966). He has
no authority to appear as an attorney for others than
himself. Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79
(9th Cir.1962); Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44,
45 (D.C.Cir.1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944, 74
S.Ct. 640, 98 L.Ed. 1092 (1954). The real party in interest
must be the person who “by substantive law has the
right to be enforced.” See C.E. Pope
Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th
Cir. 1987); see also McShane v. United States, 366
F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.1966) (the privilege to represent
oneself pro se provided by section 1654 is personal
to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or
entities). A non-lawyer representative cannot litigate claims
that are not personal to him.
pre so litigant, Cadiz may represent himself, only; he cannot
represent a class of similarly situated people, even if a
corporation's employee's opening a restroom door was
the sort of claim that could otherwise lead to a class action
against the corporation.
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED. Plaintiff Cadiz shall pay the filing fee or file an
amended complaint within 21 days of this
Order, or the case will be dismissed. Any amended complaint
should focus on the “who, what, when, where, and
why” of a factual story. Acres of adjectives, legal
citations, and conclusory statements are not required and are
not enough to state a viable claim. His complaint should
identify who did what to him, when where and why, and then