Rhine v. Buttigieg

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 3, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01761
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 DANIEL RHINE, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:20-cv-01761-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity 12 as Secretary of the United States 13 Department of Transportation, 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma 18 pauperis. Dkt. # 86. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff worked for the FAA from 2010 until 2019, when the FAA removed him 21 from federal service after an investigation revealed Rhine had misused government 22 equipment and time on a personal house-flipping business, gambling pools, and graduate 23 coursework, misrepresented his time and attendance, taken food that was not his out of 24 common-area refrigerators, and then failed to show candor when confronted with that 25 misconduct. Dkt. # 69. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts Title VII claims against the U.S. 26 Secretary of Transportation and alleges that he suffered adverse treatment because he 27 1 made complaints of discrimination and harassment from January 2019 through August 2 2019. Id. 3 Following a period of discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4 22. This Court referred the motion to the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, who then issued a 5 Report & Recommendation that Defendant’s motion be granted and the case dismissed 6 with prejudice. Dkt. # 69. In February 2023, this Court then issued an order adopting the 7 Report & Recommendation and entered judgment. Dkt. # 75. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff 8 filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. # 84. 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff did not initially seek in forma pauperis status in filing this action; rather, 11 he paid the filing fee in full. Dkt. # 1. Nonetheless, Rule 24(a)(1), Federal Rules of 12 Appellate Procedure (“Fed. R. App. P.”), provides that a party may proceed in forma 13 pauperis on appeal if he or she files a motion in district court and attaches an affidavit 14 that: (1) shows in detail the party’s inability to pay or give security for fees and costs; (2) 15 claims an entitlement to redress; and 3) states the issues the party intends to present on 16 appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 17 The determination of the moving party’s indigency falls within the district court’s 18 discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir.1991), rev'd on 19 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain 20 benefit of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F.2d at 725. “[A]n 21 affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give 22 security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependants with the 23 necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 24 Where the supporting affidavits comply with the statute, they should ordinarily be 25 accepted, especially if unopposed. Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F.2d at 725. 26 Here, the motion is unopposed. Plaintiff explains his financial status declaring he 27 makes approximately, $2,400 and has less than $200 in his bank account. Dkt. # 86. 1 Plaintiff further declares that his monthly expenses exceeds his income by approximately 2 $4,000. Id. Plaintiff intends to appeal the adverse summary judgment ruling on his 3 employment discrimination and retaliation claims. Id. Plaintiff has shown his financial 4 eligibility and that the appeal is not frivolous. Therefore, his motion to proceed on appeal 5 in forma pauperis is granted. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 8 appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 86. 9 DATED this 3rd day of May, 2023. 10 A 11

12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27