Opinion
CASE NO. C17-5289
08-29-2017
TATYANA MASON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MASON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Tatyana Mason's amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #11]. Plaintiff sues her ex-husband, Defendant John Mason, to enforce the I-864 Affidavit of Support he signed when Mason entered the country in 1999. She asks the Court to award her $499,926.50 for John's delinquent payments since that time.
A 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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
A pro se's complaint is liberally construed, 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.
Mason once again provides—in extensive detail—her financial difficulties, but does not address the shortcomings in her first IFP application. Mason has yet to address why federal court is the appropriate forum for this claim. Nor does she acknowledge or address the fact that she currently has three pending Washington State Court appeals apparently concerning this same issue. The Court told Mason in its prior Order that those proceedings prevented the court from considering this case:
This Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions made in state court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
This is a trial court, not an appellate court, and it is a court of limited jurisdiction. To state a claim here, the plaintiff must identify an actual claim, and identify both the basis for this Court's jurisdiction over the claim, and its jurisdiction over the parties.[Dkt. #5].
Mason's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Because Mason cannot cure the existence of the other cases by amending her complaint a third time, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2017.
/s/_________
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge