Patu v. Blair

W.D. Washington

Patu v. Blair

DecidedSeptember 1, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00764

StatusUnknown

This text of Patu v. Blair (Patu v. Blair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patu v. Blair, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 SOLOMONA RICKY PATU, Case No. C22-764 TL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION AND APPLICATION TO BRANDI BLAIR, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 9 Defendant. 10

11 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Judge Theresa 12 L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find 13 and ORDER: 14 (1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; 15 (2) plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; 16 (3) the Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis does 17 not constitute a separate strike, because the Court did not make a ruling on 18 whether any claim in the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See, El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 19 2016) (“Because the grounds for dismissal . . . were that [plaintiff] had 20 incurred too many strikes, and not because the cases were themselves 21 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, they do not count as separate 22 strikes against [plaintiff]”). 23 24 1 (4) If plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, he must pay the Court filing fee within 2 21 days of this Order; failure to pay the filing fee will result in the case 3 being closed; and 4 (5) if plaintiff appeals, plaintiff will not continue in forma pauperis on appeal. 5 Dated this 1st day of September 2022. 6 7 A 8 Tana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 SOLOMONA RICKY PATU, Case No. C22-764 TL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION AND APPLICATION TO BRANDI BLAIR, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 9 Defendant. 10

11 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Judge Theresa 12 L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find 13 and ORDER: 14 (1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; 15 (2) plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; 16 (3) the Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis does 17 not constitute a separate strike, because the Court did not make a ruling on 18 whether any claim in the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See, El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 19 2016) (“Because the grounds for dismissal . . . were that [plaintiff] had 20 incurred too many strikes, and not because the cases were themselves 21 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, they do not count as separate 22 strikes against [plaintiff]”). 23 24 1 (4) If plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, he must pay the Court filing fee within 2 21 days of this Order; failure to pay the filing fee will result in the case 3 being closed; and 4 (5) if plaintiff appeals, plaintiff will not continue in forma pauperis on appeal. 5 Dated this 1st day of September 2022. 6 7 A 8 Tana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patu v. Blair, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patu-v-blair-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack