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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5236FDB-KLS

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Noted for November 10, 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. To file a complaint and initiate legal proceedings, plaintiff

must pay a filing fee of $350.00 or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because

plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause, the undersigned recommends the court

deny his application. 

DISCUSSION

The 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). 

Several district courts have ruled that denial of in forma pauperis status is not unreasonable when a

Case 3:06-cv-05236-FDB Document 16 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

prisoner is able to pay the initial expenses required to commence a lawsuit. See Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586

F.Supp. 848 (D.R.I. 1984); Braden v. Estelle, 428 F.Supp. 595 (S.D.Tex. 1977); U.S. ex rel. Irons v.

Com. of Pa., 407 F.Supp. 746 (M.D.Pa. 1976); Shimabuku v. Britton, 357 F.Supp. 825 (D.Kan. 1973),

aff'd, 503 F.2d 38 (10th Cir. 1974); Ward v. Werner, 61 F.R.D. 639 (M.D.Pa. 1974).

On August 10, 2006, the undersigned issued a second order to show cause, directing plaintiff’s to

cure certain deficiencies in his application to proceed in forma pauperis by no later than September 10,

2006. (Dkt. #15). Specifically, plaintiff had failed to provide the Court with certain additional financial

information he previously was ordered to provide. (See Dkt. #10). Plaintiff was warned that failure to

timely provide this information would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this matter. To date,

however, plaintiff still has failed to provide the requested information. 

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s second order to show cause regarding the

needed financial information noted above, the undersigned recommends the Court dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint unless he pays the required $350.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 72(b),

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections thereto. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit

imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set this matter for consideration on November

10, 2006, as noted in the caption. 

Dated this 17th day of October, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05236-FDB Document 16 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2