Webb v. Enterprise Holdings LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DAVID Q. WEBB, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05406-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 12. Judge Fricke recommends the Court deny Plaintiff David Q. Webb’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, because he failed to state a claim. Dkt. 12. After Judge Fricke issued the R&R, Webb moved to appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. 14.

18 A party to a district court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “We consider a defendant’s good faith in this type of case demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The determination whether a party can proceed in forma pauperis is a “matter within the discretion of the trial court.” Weller v. 3 Dickinson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963).

4 The Court agrees with the R&R that Webb failed to state a claim. It therefore adopts the R&R. The Court also concludes that because Webb has failed to state a plausible claim, an appeal would be frivolous. Both of Webb’s motions are therefore DENIED.

8 The Court having considered the R&R and the remaining record, and no objections having been filed, does hereby order as follows: 10 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 11 (2) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, is DENIED, 12 and Plaintiff is directed to pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days 13 of this Order; 14 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, Dkt. 14, is also 15 DENIED; and 16 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff.

17 Dated this 11th day of August, 2022.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge