Severson v. Amazon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALONZO JAMICHAEL SEVERSON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01266-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 AMAZON, STATUS 14 Defendant.

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan. Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons explained below, the Court adopts Judge Vaughan’s recommendation and denies Mr. Severson in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status.

19 On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff Alonzo Jamichael Severson submitted a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”) in this case, accompanied by a proposed complaint. Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-1. On July 15, 2025, Judge Vaughan issued a minute order—which was delivered to Mr. Severson via USPS, Dkt. No. 4, Docket Text—explaining that Mr. Severson’s IFP Application was deficient. Specifically, Judge Vaughan noted, Mr. Severson “indicates he has no income, sources of money, or money on hand or in accounts, and no monthly expenses,” yet nevertheless “has $1,600 in Ongoing Additional Requirements (‘OAR’) funds.” Id. at 1. As a result of this discrepancy, Judge Vaughan ordered Mr. Severson to “file a revised, signed IFP application . . . provid[ing] complete and detailed financial information and, if he has no means of support, he must explain how he is able to meet basic expenses, including food and shelter.” Id. She cautioned Mr. Severson that if he failed to comply with her order by August 4, 2025, he risked “denial of IFP or dismissal of this matter.” Id. at 1–2.

7 Having received no response to her July 15 Minute Order, Judge Vaughan issued the pending R&R on August 12, 2025. Dkt. No. 6. Judge Vaughan noted in her R&R that Mr. Severson had failed to “respond[] or submit[] a revised IFP application” pursuant to her instructions, and accordingly she recommended that this Court deny Mr. Severson’s IFP Application. Id. at 1. She further noted that this case “should proceed only if [Mr. Severson] pays the $405.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days after entry of the Court’s Order adopting this [R&R],” and that the Clerk should close the case if no filing fee is paid within that timeframe. Id. at 1–2 (emphasis omitted).

14 She explained that any objections to her R&R should be filed and served no later than August 26, 2025. Id. at 2. Mr. Severson did not file any objections to the R&R. 16 The Court generally reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court adopts Judge Vaughan’s R&R for the reasons provided therein. Dkt. No. 6. The Court has also independently reviewed the record and agrees with Judge Vaughan’s conclusion that Mr. Severson’s failure to correct the deficiencies in the IFP Application or otherwise respond to the July 15 Minute Order merits denial of his IFP Application.1 1 In addition, Mr. Severson has not responded to the Notice of Filing Deficiency the Clerk of Court sent Mr. Severson on the same day he filed his IFP Application. Dkt. No. 3. The Clerk explained that Mr. Severson’s initial case filings improperly omitted the applicable “Copyright/Patent/Trademark Forms” pertinent to his claims, a deficiency which “must be corrected and filed with the Court as soon as possible.” Id. at 1. The notice provided an email address to 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, Dkt. No. 6, and DENIES the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 1. If Mr. Severson does not pay filing fee within 30 days of this Order, the Clerk is directed to close the case.

4 Dated this 29th day of August, 2025.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge which Mr. Severson was instructed to send the requested documents. Id. If he pays the filing fee and proceeds with this case, he must correct that deficiency.