Stuart Robinson v. Clise Properties Inc

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, CASE NO. C24-0397-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CLISE PROPERTIES, INC., 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on the referral notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. No. 13). That court referred this matter for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for Plaintiff’s appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Id.) 19 “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 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[A]n appeal is not taken in good faith . . . if there is some evident improper motive or if no issue is presented which is not plainly frivolous.”

22 Tweedy v. United States, 276 F.2d 649, 651 (9th Cir. 1960); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If at least one issue or claim is found to be non- frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted.”).

25 Plaintiff initially filed a pro se complaint against a private security company alleging, among other things, violations of her “civil rights” and “due process.” (Dkt. No. 5.) In response to this Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. No. 7), Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8). But as this Court has previously explained, Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading infirmities contained in her original complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 9.) Specifically, she failed to state a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction or identify any state action for purposes of her constitutional claims. (See id. at 1.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff now appeals the dismissal of her case. (Dkt. No. 11.) But her notice of appeal does not address the deficiencies in her complaint; rather, she simply states that “[t]he trial court abuses discretion to deny STATE Rights under State Law Constitutionally Abridged STATE CONSTITUTION AND Civil Rights without due process of law.” (Id. at 1.) This further confirms that Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s order is frivolous because her claims lack “an arguable basis in fact or law.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Therefore, the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send this order to the Ninth Circuit, along with a copy to Plaintiff.

16 DATED this 30th day of April 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE