Ma v. City of Seattle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ROLAND MA, NO. C19-1764RSL Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 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 officer 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 appealed the dismissal, and the Court determined that plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and that the appeal was not taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). On July 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reconsideration.” Dkt. # 94.

23 To the extent plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the order of dismissal, his request is untimely. Motions for reconsideration must “be filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed,” which means plaintiff was required to seek reconsideration of the dismissal order on or before July 16, 2020. He did not. The Court therefore assumes that the ORDER DENYING MOTION motion for reconsideration is directed at the Court’s recommendation that in forma pauperis status not be granted to plaintiff on appeal. Regarding that determination, plaintiff has not shown manifest error or new information that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiff is not without recourse, however.

7 Although a litigant is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal when a district court has entered a certification under § 1915(a)(3), the litigant may 8 challenge that certification by filing a motion in [the Ninth Circuit] pursuant to Rule 24(a)(5). See Fed. R. App. P. 24 advisory committee notes (“The final paragraph [of subsection (a)] establishes a subsequent motion in the court of 10 appeals, rather than an appeal from the order of denial or from the certification of lack of good faith, as the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness 11 of the action of the district court.”).

12 O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff may therefore seek review of the undersigned’s § 1915(a)(3) certification by filing a motion in the Ninth Circuit, which may ultimately grant plainitiff leave to take an appeal in forma pauperis.

17 Dated this 12th day of August, 2020.

A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION