Smith v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department et al

Filing 52

ORDER re 51 Referral Notice from the Ninth Circuit. ORDERED that plaintiff's in forma pauperis status be, and the same hereby is, REVOKED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: cc Ninth Circuit - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 PHILLIP E. SMITH, 8 9 10 11 12 Case No. 2:15-CV-1011 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant(s). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Presently before the court is the March 7, 2017, referral notice from the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 51). The Ninth Circuit has referred the question of “whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith” to this court. (Id. at 1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”). “An appeal is frivolous ‘when the result is obvious or the appellant’s arguments are wholly without merit.’” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc., 892 F.2d 58, 61 (9th Cir. 1989)), cert. denied sub nom. Flynn v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 136 S. Ct. 1455 (2016). Here, plaintiff Phillip Smith appeals the judgment entered as a result of this court’s February 14, 2017, order dismissing plaintiff’s claims as time-barred. See (ECF Nos. 43, 44, 47). In the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, this court found that “it is uncontested that Smith filed his lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run.” (ECF No. 43 at 4). Additionally, this court deemed equitable tolling inappropriate because: (1) plaintiff was aware of his injury when he was first taken into custody, (2) he did not detrimentally rely on administrative 1 agency statements, (3) he did not allege facts showing that the prison denied him essential legal 2 services; (4) defendants have been prejudiced for lack of notice to investigate and preserve 3 evidence; and (5) plaintiff provided mere speculation that the officer defendants were spying on 4 him to ensure that he did not file a complaint. (Id.). 5 Therefore, it appears that plaintiff’s arguments on appeal would likely be “wholly without 6 merit.” Blixseth, 796 F.3d at 1007. Consequently, the appeal is not taken in good faith. See 7 Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s in forma 10 11 12 13 pauperis status be, and the same hereby is, REVOKED. DATED March 22, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?