Garcia Portillo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 EDNA GARCIA PORTILLO, et al., CASE NO. C21-5312BHS 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, and 11 TRACY RENAUD, 12 Defendants. 13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma 14 pauperis filed by Plaintiffs Edna Garcia Portillo, Dkt. 1, Jorge Soria Garcia, Dkt. 4, Jose 15 Soria Garcia, Dkt. 5, and Jose Soria Valencia, Dkt. 6, all supported by the proposed 16 Complaint, Dkt. 1-2. All Plaintiffs1 are represented by counsel, Elaine Fordyce. 17 18 19 1 The Plaintiffs’ initial filing, Dkt. 1, included a joint application to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of a slightly different and larger set of plaintiffs. The Clerk sent 20 a Notice of Filing Deficiency explaining that each plaintiff had to file a separate IFP application. Dkt. 2. In response, three of the plaintiffs filed separate Motions for Leave to 21 Proceed IFP, Dkts. 4, 5, & 6. The Court will treat the initial application, Dkt. 1, as an application on behalf of Edna Garcia Portillo. If the other initial proposed plaintiffs also 22 seek IFP status, they must also file separate IFP applications. 1 A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon 2 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court has 3 broad discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma 4 pauperis in civil actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 5 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963). 6 A person is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if they are unable to pay the 7 costs of filing and still provide the necessities of life. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 8 Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (internal quotations omitted). 9 This generally includes incarcerated individuals with no assets and persons who are 10 unemployed and dependent on government assistance. See, e.g., Ilagan v. McDonald, No. 11 2:16-cv-01209-APG-VCF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79889, at *2 (D. Nev. June 16, 2016) 12 (granting petition based on unemployment and zero income); Reed v. Martinez, No. 2:15- 13 cv-00142-APG-PAL, 2015 WL 3821514, at *1, 2015 WL 3821514 (D. Nev. June 19, 14 2015) (granting petition for incarcerated individual on condition that applicant provides 15 monthly payments towards filing fee). It does not include those whose access to the court 16 system is not blocked by their financial constraints, but rather are in a position of having 17 to weigh the financial constraints pursuing a case imposes. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 18 Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 385, 388 (N.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 865 F.2d 22 19 (2d Cir. 1988). 20 Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if 21 it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 22 merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 1 omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is 2 frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1369 3 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 4 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 5 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other 6 complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially 7 plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 8 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible 9 when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 10 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. 11 The plaintiffs have established their indigency, and their complaint appears to be 12 facially plausible. 13 The Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkts. 1, 4, 5, and 6, are 14 therefore GRANTED, and the complaint may be filed and served on behalf of these four 15 plaintiffs. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2021. A 18 19 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 20 United States District Judge 21 22