Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon

W.D. Washington

Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon

DecidedApril 28, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05095

StatusUnknown

This text of Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon (Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER BRIGGS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05095-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 7.) 13 PAIN CARE SPECIALISTS OF OREGON et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 17 7.) On March 17, 2025, having received no objection, this Court adopted the Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Magistrate Judge David W. Christel, dismissed 19 Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”), and entered judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.) The R&R found that although 21 Plaintiff could not afford the filing fee, the IFP application should be denied under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e) because it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 3 at 2–4.) 23 Plaintiff attempted to sue a private medical provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but pled no facts 24 1 showing the Defendants were acting under color of state law. (Id.) On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff 2 filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma 3 pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.) 4 Under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “a party to a district-court

5 action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. 6 App. P. 24(a)(1). The motion must include an affidavit that: 7 (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; 8 (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. 9 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A)–(C). If the party already had prior approval to proceed IFP in the 10 district court, they need not apply again to proceed IFP on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). 11 Plaintiff filed an incomplete Form 4 and otherwise failed to provide the information 12 required by Rule 24(a)(1), which is necessary for the Court to consider Plaintiff’s request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff did not complete various sections of the 14 form, thus he did not “show[] in detail” as prescribed by Form 4 his ability to pay or give 15 security for fees and costs. (See id. at 2–4.) In addition, Plaintiff does not provide an affidavit 16 that “claims an entitlement to redress” or “states the issues on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 17 24(a)(1)(B)–(C). Instead, Plaintiff provides a basic recitation of the facts in his complaint, that 18 he sought medical care at Defendant’s clinic and did not obtain care to his satisfaction, still 19 failing to show any basis to assert a claim under § 1983. (See Dkt. No. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff failed to 20 meet the requirements under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 21 Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 22 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal is taken 23 in good faith where it seeks review of a non-frivolous issue. See e.g., Arvidson v. Isbell, No. 22- 24 1 35800, 2023 WL 7013358, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2023); see also Bennett v. Boy Scouts of Am. 2 Aloha Council # 104, No. 24-6726, 2024 WL 4694084, at *1 (D. Haw. Nov. 6, 2024) (“An 3 appeal is taken in good faith if it seeks review of any issue that is non-frivolous.”) (citing Hooker 4 v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002)). A claim is frivolous when it is without

5 “basis in law or fact.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Some circuit 6 courts of appeal have held that the frivolity standard of § 1915 applies to motions for leave to 7 appeal IFP under Rule 24(a). Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982); Crisafi v. 8 Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Here, since the Court found that the complaint 9 is frivolous or failed to state a claim under § 1915(e), granting leave to appeal IFP would be 10 unwarranted. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. The 12 Court CERTFIES an appeal in this matter is not taken in good faith. 13 The Clerk’s Office is directed to notify the parties and the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit of 14 this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

15 16 Dated this 28th day of April, 2025. 17 a 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER BRIGGS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05095-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 7.) 13 PAIN CARE SPECIALISTS OF OREGON et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 17 7.) On March 17, 2025, having received no objection, this Court adopted the Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Magistrate Judge David W. Christel, dismissed 19 Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”), and entered judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.) The R&R found that although 21 Plaintiff could not afford the filing fee, the IFP application should be denied under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e) because it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 3 at 2–4.) 23 Plaintiff attempted to sue a private medical provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but pled no facts 24 1 showing the Defendants were acting under color of state law. (Id.) On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff 2 filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma 3 pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.) 4 Under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “a party to a district-court

5 action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. 6 App. P. 24(a)(1). The motion must include an affidavit that: 7 (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; 8 (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. 9 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A)–(C). If the party already had prior approval to proceed IFP in the 10 district court, they need not apply again to proceed IFP on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). 11 Plaintiff filed an incomplete Form 4 and otherwise failed to provide the information 12 required by Rule 24(a)(1), which is necessary for the Court to consider Plaintiff’s request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff did not complete various sections of the 14 form, thus he did not “show[] in detail” as prescribed by Form 4 his ability to pay or give 15 security for fees and costs. (See id. at 2–4.) In addition, Plaintiff does not provide an affidavit 16 that “claims an entitlement to redress” or “states the issues on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 17 24(a)(1)(B)–(C). Instead, Plaintiff provides a basic recitation of the facts in his complaint, that 18 he sought medical care at Defendant’s clinic and did not obtain care to his satisfaction, still 19 failing to show any basis to assert a claim under § 1983. (See Dkt. No. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff failed to 20 meet the requirements under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 21 Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 22 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal is taken 23 in good faith where it seeks review of a non-frivolous issue. See e.g., Arvidson v. Isbell, No. 22- 24 1 35800, 2023 WL 7013358, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2023); see also Bennett v. Boy Scouts of Am. 2 Aloha Council # 104, No. 24-6726, 2024 WL 4694084, at *1 (D. Haw. Nov. 6, 2024) (“An 3 appeal is taken in good faith if it seeks review of any issue that is non-frivolous.”) (citing Hooker 4 v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002)). A claim is frivolous when it is without

5 “basis in law or fact.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Some circuit 6 courts of appeal have held that the frivolity standard of § 1915 applies to motions for leave to 7 appeal IFP under Rule 24(a). Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982); Crisafi v. 8 Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Here, since the Court found that the complaint 9 is frivolous or failed to state a claim under § 1915(e), granting leave to appeal IFP would be 10 unwarranted. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. The 12 Court CERTFIES an appeal in this matter is not taken in good faith. 13 The Clerk’s Office is directed to notify the parties and the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit of 14 this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

15 16 Dated this 28th day of April, 2025. 17 a 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Briggs v. Pain Care Specialists of Oregon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-pain-care-specialists-of-oregon-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack