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

CHRISTOPHER MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN CLUZEL, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5799RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Noted for March 31, 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 $250.00 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 her 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 the plaintiff is able to pay the initial expenses required to commence a lawsuit. See

Case 3:05-cv-05799-RJB Document 4 Filed 03/07/06 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

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 December 6, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. #1). On December 20, 2006,

the clerk sent plaintiff a letter informing him that he needed to either pay the $250.00 court filing fee or file

a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis by January 19, 2006, or his complaint could be subject

to dismissal. (Dkt. #2). Because plaintiff did not respond to the clerk’s letter by that date, on January 23,

2006, the court ordered plaintiff to pay the court filing fee or cure the deficiencies in his application to

proceed in forma pauperis by no later than February 23, 2006, or show cause why this matter should not

be dismissed. (Dkt. #3). To date, however, plaintiff has failed to respond to either the clerk’s letter or the

court’s order. 

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding his need to pay

the court filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned recommends

the court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint unless he pays the required $250.00 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 March 31,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

Dated this 7th day of March, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05799-RJB Document 4 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2