Karriem v. Cellco Partnership Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Lamont Karriem, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00884-JAD-VCF

4 Plaintiff Ninth Circuit Case No. 23-15164

5 v. Order Revoking 6 Cellco Partnership Inc, et al., in forma pauperis Status

7 Defendants

8 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred this matter back to this 9 court for the limited purpose of determining whether plaintiff Lamont Karriem’s in forma 10 pauperis status should continue for this appeal.1 The decision to continue such status turns on 11 whether the entirety of Karriem’s appeal is frivolous, for “[i]f at least one issue or claim is found 12 to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as 13 a whole.”2 14 Karriem initiated this suit by filing three separate complaints, each alleging largely the 15 same facts but with different claims and against different defendants.3 Each complaint was 16 dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Those cases were then consolidated 17 into this action, in which Karriem sued various state-court judges; police sheriffs and officers; 18 the city of Las Vegas, Nevada; and various non-state actors for violations of his constitutional 19 rights following his arrest. The court gave Karriem two more chances to amend his complaint 20 21

22 1 ECF No. 37. 2 Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 3 See ECF No. 1; Karriem v. Extended Stay America Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00942-JAD-VCF; Karriem v. County of Clark, Nev., Case No. 2:20-cv-01915-JAD VCF. 1|| for failure to state a claim against any of those defendants.* In each amendment, Karriem did not follow court orders and attempted to bring claims that the court advised him were unavailable to I eventually dismissed Karriem’s third-amended complaint with prejudice, finding that (1) the judge defendants were entitled to judicial immunity; (2) the non-state-actor defendants couldn’t be sued under § 1983; (3) Karriem could not maintain his supervisory-liability claims against the sheriff defendants; (4) the complaint did not adequately state a Monell claim against the City; and (5) any remaining claims concerning his arrest were insufficiently pled and barred by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey.® And, as the magistrate judge noted in one 9|| of his screening orders, Karriem has repeatedly brought cases relying on the same facts against different defendants in various other courts, and all of those complaints have been dismissed.’ Because the appeal from the dismissal order is frivolous and not taken in good faith, IT IS 12| HEREBY ORDERED THAT the district court revokes in forma pauperis status so in forma pauperis status will not continue on appeal. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to SEND a copy of this order to the Clerk of the United 15|| States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for Case No. 23-15164. 16

US. Dis ge Jennif pose 18 Febrtsary 7, 2023 19 20 See ECF No. 4; ECF No. 17. 22 > Compare ECF No. 4 and ECF No. 17 (screening orders) with ECF No. 11 and ECF No. 20 (Karriem’s amended complaints). Heck vy. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See generally ECF No. 31. 1 See ECF No. 17 at 1 n.1.