Harris v. Combs

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, CASE NO. C23-0988-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 9 v. PAUPERIS STATUS

10 LISA COMBS, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 This matter comes before the Court on a limited referral from the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 13 43. Plaintiff Christopher William Harris previously filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 38) after the 14 Court dismissed his complaint (Dkt. No. 35), and the Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to this 15 Court “for the limited purpose of determining whether [Harris’s] in forma pauperis status should 16 continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Dkt. No. 43. For 17 the reasons explained herein, the Court finds that Harris’s appeal is frivolous and therefore his in 18 forma pauperis status should be revoked on appeal. 19 An appeal brought in good faith must request review of “at least one issue or claim” that is 20 “non-frivolous.” See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). A frivolous 21 claim “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 22 (1989). 23 24 1 Harris’s notice of appeal raises the same arguments and contentions raised in the complaint 2 that the Court previously dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Compare Dkt. No. 35 3 with Dkt. No. 38. The Court’s order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim and

4 declined to grant Plaintiff’s request for service by the United States Marshal Service. See Dkt. No. 5 35. The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state valid claims against the probation 6 officers and prosecutor in an unrelated federal criminal case, and that no amendment could cure 7 the deficiencies. See id. The Court’s order thus indicated that Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable 8 basis either in law or in fact, and that suggestion would apply with equal force to Plaintiff’s appeal 9 reiterating the same arguments. See Dkt. No. 38. 10 Accordingly, the Court finds that Harris’s appeal does not raise at least one non-frivolous 11 claim and ORDERS that his in forma pauperis status be revoked on appeal. 12 Dated this 9th day of February, 2024.

13 A 14 Kymberly K. Evanson 15 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24