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. C06-5315 FDB/KLS

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

NOTED FOR: 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

This case has been referred to United States 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. 

Plaintiff’s application was deficient as the court was unable to determine his eligibility for in forma

pauperis status based on the information submitted by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to show

cause why his application should not be dismissed. (Dkt. # 3). Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s

order nor has he requested an extension of time within which to respond to the court’s order. 

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

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

Case 3:06-cv-05315-FDB Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

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 July 18, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than August 7, 2006, why his

application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. Plaintiff listed on his application an asset

which was partially illegible. The court was unable to make a full and meaningful determination of

plaintiff’s application without the information and asked plaintiff to provide the court with further

information. (Dkt. # 3). Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause nor did he request an

extension of time within which to respond. 

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 $350.00 fee within thirty (30) days of

the court’s order. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 September 15, 2006, as noted in the caption. 

Dated this 17th day of August, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05315-FDB Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 2