Durham v. Hopkins

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Dec 06, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 JOHN-MICHAEL RAY DURHAM, NO: 2:24-CV-0299-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

10 ASHLEY HOPKINS, DCYF; JASON HAINES, DCYF; BETH WILLEY, 11 DCYF; CAITLYN KWAMINA, DCYF; KAITLIN DAHLIN, DCYF; 12 EMILY HAINSTEN, DCYF; KATIE CHRISTOPHERSON, Assistant 13 Attorney General,

14 Defendants.

15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 14. 16 This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. Plaintiff has 17 not responded to the Motion to Dismiss, timely or otherwise. The Court has 18 reviewed the briefing and the record and the files herein and is fully informed. For 19 the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is 20 GRANTED. 1 Plaintiff, John-Michael Ray Durham (“Durham”), proceeding pro se, filed a 2 complaint September 10, 2024, against Defendants alleging claims as to slander

3 and libel and alleged violations of the Washington State Constitution. ECF No. 1. 4 Plaintiff has not shown that this Court has jurisdiction over any of the named 5 Defendants for the allegations alleged. This Court does not have Federal Question

6 jurisdiction and the Eleventh Amendment bars this suit in Federal Court. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 8 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The 9 good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an

10 individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. 11 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an 12 appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

13 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 14 The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 15 faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the Court 16 hereby revokes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

17 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. 19 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

20 3. Plaintiffs’ pending motions before the Court are DENIED as moot. 1 4. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. The Court finds that any 2 appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any 3 arguable basis in law or fact. 4 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish 5|| copies to the parties, enter judgment for Defendants, and CLOSE the file. 6 Dated December 6, 2024.

Se rit Ks THOMAS O. RICE 10 “Taro United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20