Sehat v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company

Filing 239

ORDER: For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, and, therefore, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should not continue for Plaintiff's appeal. Regarding Referral Notice 237 . Signed on 3/8/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (joha)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SUBRINA POUPAK SEHAT,
Plaintiff,

3:14-CV-01433-PK
ORDER

v.

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit's
Referral Notice, Case No. 17-35168, referring Plaintiff's appeal
to this Court for the sole purpose of determining whether
Plaintiff's "in forma pauperis status should continue for [her]
appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith."
The Court concludes Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status
should not continue for appeal.

1 - ORDER

BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2014,

Plaintiff Subrina Poupak Sehat filed a

Complaint in this Court in which she alleged claims against
Defendant Progressive Universal Insurance Company for intentional
infliction of emotional distress; "intent & deprivation of
liberty, pursuit of happiness"; obstruction of justice;
"malicious intent to injure" conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights; "neglect to prevent conspiracy"; failure to provide the
standard of care; breach of contract; "mental suffering and
emotional distress"; negligent infliction of emotional distress;
breach of fiduciary duty; and "aggravation of previous injury"
related to two automobile accidents Plaintiff was involved in and
Plaintiff's alleged automobile-insurance coverage by Progressive
Universal.
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 68-page First Amended
Complaint against Defendants Progressive, Washington County
Sheriff's Office (WCSO), and Corbridge & Kroll Law Firm.
Plaintiff brought nine tort and contractual claims against
Progressive arising out of an insurance-coverage dispute, eleven
claims against Corbridge & Kroll comprising a "conspiracy to
commit legal malpractice," seventeen claims against WCSO for tort
and civil-rights violations, and forty-four "additional claims"
against Defendants.
Progressive filed a Motion to Dismiss, WSCO filed a Motion

2 - ORDER

for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Dismiss, Corbridge & Kroll
filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff filed numerous other
motions.
On February 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued
Amended Findings and Recommendations in which he recommended,
among other things, that the Court (1) grant Progressive's Motion
to Dismiss and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Claims 1-5
against Progressive;

(2) grant WCSO's Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff's Claims 1-4, 6-8,

9-12, and 14 and dismiss with

prejudice those claims against WCSO;

(3) deny with leave to

refile WCSO's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's
Claims 5, 13, and 15-17 against WCSO;

(4) grant Corbridge &

Kroll's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's
claims against Corbridge & Kroll; and (5) deny Plaintiff's
various motions.
On March 23, 2015, this Court issued an Order (#64) granting
Plaintiff's Motions (#60, #63)

for Extension of Time to respond

to the Findings and Recommendation.

The Court directed Plaintiff

to file any Objection to the Findings and Recommendation no later
than April 22, 2015.
On April 28, 2015, this Court issued an Order (#85) granting
Plaintiff's Motion (#80)

for Extension of Time to File Objection

to Findings and Recommendation.

The Court directed Plaintiff to

file any Objection to the Findings and Recommendation no later

3 - ORDER

than May 8, 2015.

The Court advised Plaintiff that it would not

grant Plaintiff any further extension of time to file Objections.
On May 12, 2015,

Plaintiff filed Objections (#92,

#93, #94)

to the Findings and Recommendation.
On May 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it
noted Plaintiff failed to file her Objections by May 8, 2015, as
directed in the Court's April 28, 2015, Order.

The Court,

therefore, struck Plaintiff's Objections and gave Plaintiff leave
to show cause why the Court should consider her Objections timely
filed.
On May 29, 2015,

Plaintiff filed an Answer to Order for

Explanation related to her untimely Objections.
On June 1, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it
concluded Plaintiff had not sufficiently explained her late
filing and, therefore, ordered Plaintiff's Objections to remain
stricken. 1

The Court took the Findings and Recommendation to be

under advisement on June 1, 2015.
On August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order in which it
adopted as modified the Findings and Recommendation and
(1) granted Progressive's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with
prejudice Plaintiff's Claims 1-5 against Progressive and

1

Although the Court struck Plaintiff's untimely Objections,
the Court, nevertheless, reviewed the materials and found it
would not have reached a different result even if it had
considered those materials.
4 - ORDER

Plaintiff's "additional claims" against Progressive;

(2) granted

WCSO's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims 1-4, 6-8,

9-12, 14,

and "additional claims" against WCSO, dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's Claims 9-12, 14, and "additional claims," and
dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claims 1-4 and 6-8 with
leave to amend to the extent that Plaintiff could allege facts to
establish that she gave notice to WCSO of Claims 1-4 and 6-8
within 180 days of the alleged loss or injury;

(3) denied WCSO's

Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims 5, 13, and
15-17 against WCSO with leave to refile as set out in the
Findings and Recommendation;

(4) granted Corbridge & Kroll's

Motion to Dismiss, dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's Claims
1-11 against Corbridge & Kroll without leave to amend, and
dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's "additional claims" against
Corbridge & Kroll; and (5) denied Plaintiff's various motions.
The Court concluded the matter would proceed only on Plaintiff's
claims against Progressive for breach of contract and Plaintiff's
claims against WCSO for excessive force,

conditions of

confinement, public-entity liability, due process, and excessive
fine until Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and/or
Defendants filed further dispositive motions.
On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 148-page Second
Amended Complaint and included 200 pages of exhibits.
On December 2, 2015, WCSO filed a Motion to Dismiss for

5 - ORDER

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

On

April 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation in which he recommended the Court grant WCSO's
Motion to Dismiss and directed Plaintiff to file a Third Amended
Complaint that cured the deficiencies set out in the Findings and
Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge specifically advised

Plaintiff:
It is critical that Sehat recognize that the
deficiencies in her SAC cannot be cured by simply
adding more content.
Indeed, the primary problems
with her SAC are that it contains too much
irrelevant and redundant material and that it
fails to connect the relevant material with her
legal claims.
Sehat is reminded that her
complaint is not the place to include any and all
evidence that may support her claims.
In drafting
her Third Amended Complaint, Sehat is directed to
consult the court's Guide for Self-Represented
Parties and Complaint Forms, which provide
guidance on how to draft a proper complaint.
Findings and Recommendation (#179) at 4.
On May 16, 20016, the Court issued an Order in which it
adopted the Findings and Recommendation and, among other things,
granted WSCO's Motion to Dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to
file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with the Findings and
Recommendation.
On July 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 52-page Third Amended
Complaint, which included over 700 pages of declarations and
exhibits, and brought claims against Defendant Ryan Corbridge for
the first time.

6 - ORDER

All Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint.
On November 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings
and Recommendation in which he recommended the Court grant WCSO's
Motion to Dismiss, grant Corbridge's Motion to Dismiss, grant
Progressive's Motion to Dismiss, and dismiss this matter with
prejudice.

In addition to his analysis of the substance of

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge also
noted:
As with her previous Complaints, Plaintiff devotes
considerable time and attention to irrelevant
matters, including lengthy descriptions of
nineteenth-century Oregon politics, the formation
of Washington County, Progressive's Internet-based
business strategy, and the manner in which a
Washington County jail inmate identified only as
Laura was transported to and from the jail
showers.
Plaintiff's supporting documents are
similarly replete with irrelevant and redundant
material, including long digressions on
Plaintiff's difficulties with her family, her
objections to traditional Middle Eastern cultural
norms, and her tumultuous relationship with her
significant other.
It is clear that Plaintiff has
not complied with this Court's order that she
submit a short and plain statement consistent with
the requirements of Rule 8.

* * *
Plaintiff has been given several opportunities to
amend her complaint with the benefit of explicit
guidance from the Court and each attempt has
resulted in increasingly voluminous and confused
pleadings.
This Court has also endeavored to
secure pro bono counsel to assist Plaintiff, but
without success.
Given the age of this case and
Plaintiffs numerous opportunities to amend, it is
clear that less drastic alternatives would be
7 - ORDER

unavailing.
Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint
should be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
comply with the requirements of Rule 8 and this
Court's previous orders.
Findings and Recommendation (#219) at 5-6 (citations omitted).
On February 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order in which it
adopted the Findings and Recommendation and, accordingly, granted
WCSO's Motion to Dismiss, granted Corbridge's Motion to Dismiss,
granted Progressive's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed this
matter with prejudice.

The Court also entered a Judgment

dismissing this matter with prejudice.
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
On February 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit, as noted, referred
Plaintiff's appeal to this Court for the sole purpose of
determining whether Plaintiff's "in forma pauperis status should
continue for [his] appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or
taken in bad faith."
The Court points out that throughout the duration of this
matter both this Court and the Magistrate Judge repeatedly noted
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's orders to provide a
short and plain statement of her claims.

In addition, Plaintiff

was provided with numerous chances to state and to support viable
claims but failed to do so.

Thus, the Court concludes

Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous and Plaintiff's in forma pauperis
status should not continue for Plaintiff's appeal.

8 - ORDER

I
I

I

I

I

t

l

\

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is
frivolous, and, therefore,

Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status

should not continue for Plaintiff's appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

gth

day of March, 2017.

Isl

Anna J. Brown

ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

9 -

ORDER