Hueter v. Haaland ( 2021 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 STEVEN JAY PINCUS HUETER, aka CASE NO. C21-1271-JCC TAO, 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 DEBRA ANNE HALLAND, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on the referral notice from the United States Court of 16 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. No. 17). The Ninth Circuit referred this matter for the limited 17 purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for Plaintiff’s appeal or 18 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 20 is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[A]n appeal is not taken in good faith . . . if 21 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 23 Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If at least one issue or claim is found to be non- 24 frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted.”). 25 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Debra Haaland in her official capacity as the 26 1 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, as well as Ingrid Pederson, Gerald Young, and the 2 S/V Falcon. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff alleged that Ms. Pederson and Mr. Young illegally took the 3 Falcon from a storage facility in Washington State and sailed it to American Samoa, where they 4 now live on the vessel. (Id. at 11–31.) The Court dismissed the claims against Ms. Haaland with 5 prejudice based on qualified immunity and the remaining defendants without prejudice based on 6 a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 11.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 7 reconsideration for the same reasons. (Dkt. No. 14). To note, this was the second time the Court 8 dismissed a complaint by Plaintiff containing similar allegations. See Hueter v. Pederson, 2021 9 WL 4209430, slip op. (W.D. Wash. 2021). 10 Plaintiff now appeals the dismissal of his case. (Dkt. No. 15.) His notice of appeal does 11 not address the deficiencies in his complaint. (See id.) Therefore, the Court CERTIFIES that 12 Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and REVOKES his in forma pauperis status. The 13 Court respectfully DIRECTS the Clerk to send this order to the Court of Appeals. The Court 14 further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 15 DATED this 25th day of October 2021. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26