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

CHRISTOPHER S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5328RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S

I.F.P. APPLICATION

Noted for September 29, 2006

The court has reviewed petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 11). The

court finds and recommends:

(1). On June 9, 2006, the Clerk received this matter on transfer from the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia. Included in those materials was an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was

docketed by the Clerk on the court’s motion calendar. In addition the Clerk sent Mr. Johnson a letter, dated

June 16, 2006, indicating that the application was deficient (it did not include a trust account statement). 

On July 20, 2006, the court reviewed plaintiff’s application and found it to be incomplete. In addition

the court reviewed the underlying matter and explained to plaintiff that it was most appropriately considered a

civil rights action based on conditions of confinement. Plaintiff was directed to file the missing document

(prison trust account statement) and submit complete the IFP application form by not later than August 9, 2006. 

To date, the court has not received an appropriate response. Plaintiff has filed objections to the court’s order,

but he has not attempted to cure the deficiencies in the IFP application noted by the court. 

Case 3:06-cv-05328-RBL Document 20 Filed 09/05/06 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

ORDER

Page - 2

(2). 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). 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 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).

(3) Based on the above, the Court should deny plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,. 

Plaintiff has not shown that is unable to pay the full filing fee ($350.00) to proceed with his lawsuit. In

addition, the court should direct Mr. Johnson to pay the filing within 30 days of the court’s order, and if he fails

to pay the filing fee the clerk should be directed to dismiss this matter as frivolous. 

(4) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. 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 Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to

set the matter for consideration on September 29, 2006, as noted in the caption.

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05328-RBL Document 20 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2