Ma v. City of Seattle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ROLAND MA, NO. C19-1764RSL Plaintiff, v. CERTIFICATION CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., Defendants.

On July 2, 2020, the above-captioned matter was dismissed because the allegations of the second amended complaint (as supplemented by the proposed allegations against Detective Sandbeck) did not give rise to a plausible inference that the office engaged in unlawful activity, that any of the conduct alleged was the result of a municipal policy or practice, or that plaintiff is entitled to relief under any of the claims asserted. Plaintiff has now appealed the dismissal. This matter is again before the Court to determine whether in forma pauperis status should be permitted on appeal. Dkt. # 92.

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.” For purposes of this statute, “good faith” is generally established “by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (1958). Having again reviewed the allegations of the second amended complaint and the motion to further amend, the Court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and this appeal is not taken in good faith.

Dated this 20th day of July, 2020.

A 5 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge