BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Betsy Elgar's ("Elgar") motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1).
On November 21, 2012, Elgar filed the motion and the complaint stating that Defendants stole all of her money. Dkt. 1-4 (brief description of claim). Upon review of the complaint and attached material, it appears that Elgar is requesting personal reimbursement for the government's disbursement of funds under the Trouble Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). Elgar seeks $622 billion in assets disbursed to some 6000 retail stores.
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.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). "A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987).
A federal court may dismiss the complaint sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief."). See also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
In this case, Elgar's complaint is frivolous because there is no arguable basis in law or fact for the proposition that a taxpayer can personally request reimbursement for the disbursement of funds under TARP. Therefore, the Court denies Elgar's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismisses her complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge