Berra v. Denay

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON LEROY K. BERRA, NO. 2:18-CV-0311-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS 9 v. HATTON, HOSHKA, AND VELOSKI’S MOTION FOR MR. VELOSKI, SCDS Custody SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sergeant, MRS. HOSHKA, SCDS Custody Officer, DENAY, Physician Assistant, HATTON, Custody Officer, 13 Defendants.

15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants Hatton, Hoshka, and Veloski’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed.

19 Defendants’ Motion was filed on April 6, 2020 and set for a hearing on May 26, 2020. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff was simultaneously provided the notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998 (en banc). ECF No. 52. Under this District’s Local Rules, Plaintiff’s response to the Motion was due on May 6, 2020. LCivR 7(c)(2)(A)(ii). On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. ECF No. 54. The Court granted this Motion and ordered Plaintiff to file his response by May 13, 2020. ECF No. 56. Plaintiff failed to file any response.

7 Failure to comply with filing deadlines “may be deemed consent to the entry of an order adverse to the party who violates these rules.” LCivR 7(e). Because Plaintiff’s extended filing deadline and the hearing date on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment have now passed and Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the Motion, the Court deems Plaintiff to have consented to entry of an Order Granting Summary Judgment pursuant to LCivR 7(e).

13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

20 // 1]; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Defendants Hatton, Hoshka, and Veloski’s Motion for Summary 3 Judgment (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED.

4 2. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of 5 this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable 6 basis in law or fact.

7 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to 8|| the parties, and terminate Hatton, Hoshka, and Veloski as Defendants in this matter.

10 DATED May 27, 2020.

12 Ss os & THOMAS Ok ae Chief United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HATTON, HOSHKA, AND