Rogers v. Reichard

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided November 7, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01812·Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, CASE NO. C23-1812-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 L. REICHARD, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on the referral notices from the United States Court 16 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. Nos. 42, 44), who referred this matter to determine 17 whether in forma pauperis status should continue. (Id.) 18 “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it 19 is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[A]n appeal is not taken in good faith . . . if 20 there is some evident improper motive or if no issue is presented which is not plainly frivolous.” 21 Tweedy v. United States, 276 F.2d 649, 651 (9th Cir. 1960); see also Hooker v. American 22 Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If at least one issue or claim is found to be non- 23 frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted.”). 24 In the underlying case, United States Magistrate Michelle L. Peterson granted Plaintiff’s 25 motion to proceed in forma pauperis and later issued a report and recommendation, which this 26 Court adopted, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 1 (Dkt. Nos. 5, 29, 37.) Plaintiff now seeks review of this decision. (See Dkt. Nos. 39, 40.) But the 2 Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint lacked an arguable basis in law and, as such, it shall be 3 cosnidered frivolous for purposes of in forma pauperis status on appellate review. See Neitzke v. 4 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 5 Accordingly, the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and 6 REVOKES his in forma pauperis status. The Court respectfully DIRECTS the Clerk to send this 7 order to the Court of Appeals. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order 8 to Plaintiff. 9 DATED this 7th day of November 2024. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

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

Rogers v. Reichard, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Rogers v. Reichard (Rogers v. Reichard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frank Emmett Tweedy v. United States
276 F.2d 649 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)