Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
JUSTIN MATTHEW FORSMAN, CASE NO. C16-5949 RJB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS AND FOR DANIEL L. STAHNKE, individually and FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM in his official capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Clark County, Washington,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), and on review of the proposed complaint and Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. 1-1 and 1-2). The Court has considered the relevant record and the remainder of the file herein.
On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. Dkt. 1.
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 (9 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 22
U.S. 845 (1963).
23
24 *2 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff states that he receives no income except $194.00 in Basic Food Assistance. Dkt. 1, at 3. Plaintiff states that he has no money or other assets, and no living expenses or dependants. Dkt. 1, at 2. He states he has “debts” with “Multnomah County Courts,” “Clark County Courts,” student loans and “various medical bills,” but does not include the amounts owed. Id .
Review of the Complaint. The 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 Cir.1988).
Plaintiff alleges that on or around February 4, 2016, he submitted a petition in the Clark County Superior Court “declaring and asserting [his] right to bear arms and request the court grant [his] declaration of rights, and restore to [his] rights to bear arms in the protection of his life, liberty, property and state.” Dkt. 1-1, at 3. Plaintiff maintains that at the time, “[he] wasn’t under any investigations, charged with a crimes [sic] and had served [his] sentence for [his] convictions, yet the prosecutor was withholding [his] rights.” Id. During a hearing on his petition, Plaintiff asserts that Clark County Superior Court Judge Stahnke, the Defendant here, informed him that in order to grant his petition, he would need to declare RCW 9.41.040 unconstitutional and “that was a decision he was not willing to make.” Dkt. 1-1, at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Stahnke notified him that if he did not like his ruling, he was free to appeal his decision. Dkt. 1-1, at 3. Plaintiff claims that Judge Stahnke exercised “power or authority of the court unconstitutionally and unlawfully; an insurgent against constitutional power.” Dkt. 1-1, at 4. Plaintiff asserts various federal and state constitutional claims against Judge Stahnke. Id. *3 Sua Sponte Dismissal. A federal court may dismiss a case sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief."). See also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte , even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
“Anglo–American common law has long recognized judicial immunity, a sweeping form of immunity for acts performed by judges that relate to the judicial process.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002)( internal quotations omitted ). All of Judge Stahnke’s acts complained of here relate to the judicial process. He has absolute judicial immunity from this suit. See Olson v. Idaho State Board of Medicine , 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that judges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within their jurisdiction). This case has no arguable basis in law or fact. The complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr. , 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995).
In this case, any attempt by Plaintiff to amend the complaint would be futile. Plaintiff should not be afforded leave to amend his complaint.
*4 Decision on Application to Proceed IFP . 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 (9 Cir. 1998), quoting Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust , 821 F. 2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Based upon the above analysis of the deficiencies in the complaint, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis .
IFP on Appeal. In the event that Plaintiff appeals this order, and/or appeals dismissal of this case, IFP status should be denied by this Court, without prejudice to Plaintiff to file with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Future filings . Other than a Notice of Appeal, any filings in this case in the future will be docketed by the Clerk but not acted upon by the court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED; This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE .
In the event that Plaintiff files an appeal in this case, IFP status is DENIED by this Court, without prejudice to Plaintiff to file with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Other than a Notice of Appeal, any filings in this case in the future will be docketed by the Clerk but will not be acted upon by the Court.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
*5 Dated this 17 day of November, 2016.
A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge