Estate of Burkhard Ketschau v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 24-6956
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTATE OF BURKHARD KETSCHAU, No. 24-6956 by and through Personal Representatives D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01437-LK Ryan Ketschau and Ruby E Ketschau; RYAN KETSCHAU; RUBY E. KETSCHAU, MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Lauren J. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the termination of their civil action for failure

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). to pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not err in terminating plaintiffs’ civil action because

they failed to pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed IFP by the deadline set

by the court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) (providing that the “clerk of each district

court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such

court . . . to pay a filing fee”), 1915(a)(1) (setting forth provisions for proceeding

IFP); W.D. Wash. Civ. R. 3(b)-(c) (providing that a party must pay the civil filing

fee unless proceeding IFP and setting forth procedure for proceeding IFP); Harris

v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a plaintiff must

pay a fee before he may file a complaint in federal court” unless he demonstrates

indigence, in which case he may proceed IFP).

We reject as unsupported by the record plaintiffs’ contentions that the

district court was biased against them, deprived them of their rights, or improperly

sealed any exhibit.

This disposition is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ raising with the district

court their belated payment of the filing fee.

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6956