Benshoof v. Admon

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KURT BENSHOOF and BRIANA CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1392 8 GAGE, ORDER 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 MOSHE ADMON, DANIEL AUDERER, JUSTIN BOOKER, FREYA 12 BRIER, CITY OF SEATTLE, NATHAN CLIBER, ZACHARY COOK, 13 BENJAMIN COOMER, ANITA CRAWFORD-WILLIS, JENNY 14 DURKAN, AMY FRANKLIN-BIHARY, WILLIE GREGORY, OWEN 15 HERMSEN, DAVID KEENAN, GABRIEL LADD, MAGALIE 16 LERMAN, MARY LYNCH, KATRINA OUTLAND, JESSICA OWEN, BLAIR 17 RUSS, SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, KING COUNTY, SEATTLE 18 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS, CENTRAL COOP, PUGET 19 CONSUMERS CO-OP, FAYE CHESS, ANN DAVIDSON, ADAM 20 EISENBERG, MATTHEW LENTZ, JEROME ROACHE, SOHEILA 21 SARRAFAN, DAVID SULLIVAN, and JORDAN WALLACE, 22 Defendants. 23 1 This matter comes before the Court on referral from the United States Court 2 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Referral”). Dkt. No. 251. Having reviewed the

3 relevant record, the Court REVOKES Kurt Benshoof’s in forma pauperis status for 4 his appeal, No. 24-4223. 5 On June 28, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Kurt Benshoof and Briana 6 Gage’s first amended complaint with prejudice. Dkt. No. 245. In an extensive 46- 7 page order, the Court thoroughly explained why each of Plaintiffs’ 40 causes of 8 action were meritless given that they fail to state constitutional violations, accused

9 immune parties of wrongdoing, and alleged an extremely implausible RICO 10 conspiracy. Based on these and other deficiencies, the Court found it would be futile 11 to grant leave to amend a second time and dismissed all claims with prejudice. 12 On July 2, 2024, Benshoof and Gage filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 247. 13 The Ninth Circuit referred this matter to this Court “for the limited purpose of 14 determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or 15 whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Dkt. No. 251 at 1. The Court

16 addresses this question below. 17 Benshoof’s IFP status should be revoked in this matter. The Court never 18 granted IFP status to Gage. See Dkt. A good faith appeal must seek review of at 19 least one “non-frivolous” issue or claim. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 20 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). A frivolous claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis either in 21 law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Benshoof’s causes of

22 action lack an arguable basis in law and fact. Moreover, Benshoof’s conduct shows a 23 continuous pattern of bringing non-meritorious litigation in this district. Examining 1 his filings as a whole supports the conclusion that Benshoof is not acting in good 2 faith. See Matter of Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1987) (bankruptcy;

3 successive filings, when viewed together, can be evidence of bad faith); Jenson v. 4 Carr, No. C11-1222RSL, 2012 WL 13028543, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2012) 5 (finding that “a tremendous number of claims premised on the same alleged injury” 6 was evidence of the harassing nature of a litigant’s actions). 7 Because Benshoof’s First Amended Complaint does not include a single non- 8 frivolous claim as articulated by the Court in its extensive order dismissing with

9 prejudice, Dkt. No. 245, the Court concludes his appeal is not in good faith and that 10 his IFP status to appeal must be revoked. 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 12 • The Court CERTIFIES that Benshoof’s appeal is frivolous and not 13 taken in good faith. Benshoof’s in forma pauperis status is revoked. 14 • The Clerk of the Court SHALL provide a copy of this order to the 15 Ninth Circuit.

16 Dated this 18th day of July, 2024. 17 A 18 Jamal N. Whitehead 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23