1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAN BEDKER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5276RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, AND REFERRING

MOTION FOR SELF RECUSAL

TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s IFP

Application. Dkt. 3. The court has considered the relevant documents, including plaintiff’s objections, and

the remainder of the record herein.

On April 12, 2005, plaintiff, a resident at the Special Commitment Center (SCC), filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. On May 9, 2005, U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the court deny the application to

proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the $250 filing fee in this case. Dkt.

3. Plaintiff’s application shows that he makes $300 every two weeks working for the DSHS at SCC. Dkt.

1.

On May 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a document captioned Response to R & R Dkt #3 and Motion for

Self-Recusal. Dkt. 4. Although this Report and Recommendation was noted for June 3, 2005, it is ripe

Case 3:05-cv-05276-RBL Document 5 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

for consideration, since plaintiff has filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation, and since

defendants have not yet been served.

Regarding his application to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff contends that expenses at SCC are

significant, that he is not a prisoner, and that he should not be deprived of his life savings to pursue this

action. Dkt. 4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

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). 

The record shows that plaintiff has an income of $300 every two weeks. More than two weeks

have passed since the magistrate judge issued the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has made a

choice to file this civil action. While the costs of this action may place a burden on his resources, plaintiff

appears to have sufficient funds to avail himself of his legal remedies by filing this action. Accordingly, the

court should adopt the Report and Recommendation and deny plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. Before the court dismisses this case, however, plaintiff should have the opportunity to pay the

filing fee.

The court notes that plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on December 8, 2004, in Bedker

v. Seling, C04-5696RJB, because he had no funds left in his savings account and he was no longer

employed. That is not the case here, where plaintiff appears to be earning an income sufficient to pay the

filing fee. 

Pursuant to Local Rule GR 8, plaintiff’s motion for recusal should be referred to Magistrate Judge

Arnold.

Plaintiff is informed that this pleading, in addition to objecting to the Report and Recommendation

of the magistrate judge, also requests that Magistrate Judge Arnold recuse himself. The pleading requests

relief from both the undersigned judge and from Magistrate Judge Arnold. This is a tactic that has been

used frequently by another SCC resident, Richard Roy Scott. Mr. Scott has been placed under severe

restrictions by this court. See, for example, Scott v. Seling, C04-5147RJB, Dkt. 170. Plaintiff’s objections

Case 3:05-cv-05276-RBL Document 5 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

in the present case discuss Mr. Scott’s cases and unhappiness with the court’s rulings in those cases, and

also discuss other cases brought by other SCC residents that are not relevant to the issues before the court

in this case. Dkt. 4. Mr. Bedker is informed that this is his case, not Mr. Scott’s. Pleadings such as this

Response to R & R Dkt #3 and Motion for Self-Recusal are unacceptable, and constitute improper

litigation tactics designed to confuse the court and multiply proceedings. Such tactics will not be tolerated

by the court. If Mr. Bedker files pleadings in the future that are improper and abusive, the court will

consider imposing sanctions that could include monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the case.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Dkt. 3) is

ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. If plaintiff

desires to proceed with this civil action, he shall pay the $250 filing fee to the Court Clerk, not later than

June 23, 2005. If plaintiff fails to timely submit the filing fee, the Clerk is directed to dismiss this case

without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Self-Recusal (Dkt. 4) is REFERRED to Judge Arnold.

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. 

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2005.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05276-RBL Document 5 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3