Chen v. King County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HUY-YING CHEN, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01492-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Huy-Ying Chen’s motion to appeal in 17 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 34. On December 27, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ 18 motion for summary judgment, denied Mr. Chen’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed 19 this action. Dkt. No. 31. Mr. Chen has appealed that dismissal. Dkt. No. 33. 20 Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), a party who, like Mr. Chen, has not 21 previously been granted IFP status “must file a motion in the district court” to appeal IFP.1 The 22 23 1 If the district court denies IFP status on appeal, the party may subsequently file a motion to proceed IFP in the court 24 of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 1 motion must include a financial affidavit, Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A), which Mr. Chen has filed. 2 Dkt. No. 34 at 1–6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (permitting litigants to proceed IFP based on 3 a proper affidavit of indigency). But financial means is not the only consideration. If the Court 4 finds the appeal frivolous, it may deny leave to proceed IFP. See, e.g., Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302

5 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave 6 to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole.”); Lacy-Curry v. 7 Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs., No. C05-00453-SBA, 2006 WL 8443389, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 8 2006) (denying IFP status on appeal where “on the record before it, the Court [was] unable to 9 conclude that there [was] a non-frivolous basis for Plaintiff’s appeal.”). 10 Mr. Chen’s appeal of the dismissal is frivolous. The Court held that Defendants were 11 entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Chen’s claims are barred by issue preclusion, quasi- 12 judicial immunity, and his failure to state an outrage claim. Dkt. No. 31 at 10. The Court denied 13 Mr. Chen’s cross-motion for summary judgment because he filed it six weeks after the dispositive 14 motion deadline in violation of the Court’s scheduling order, this district’s Local Rules, the Court’s

15 prior warning that it would not tolerate further violations of the applicable rules, and his obligations 16 as a litigant. Id. at 20–21. The Court also denied Mr. Chen’s motion on the merits because it 17 reiterated the same unpersuasive arguments he made in his response to Defendants’ motion and 18 failed to show that he was entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 21. Mr. Chen appeals on the 19 grounds that the Court erred in granting Defendants’ motion and denying his. Dkt. No. 33 at 2. To 20 date, Mr. Chen has not demonstrated that his claims are anything but frivolous. 21 // 22 // 23 //

24 // 1 Accordingly, Mr. Chen’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Dkt. 2 No. 34. The Clerk is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court has denied 3 this motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(A). 4 Dated this 26th day of January, 2023.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23