Tonnemacher et al v. Ossman et al

Filing 18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

DANIEL TONNEMACHER and KATHLEEN
TONNEMACHER,

NO: 1:17-CV-3053-TOR

8
Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

JEREMI OSSMAN, Conservator; THE
LAKESHORE ASSISTED LIVING; BRENT
FEATHERSTON; JOHN FINNEY;
PATRICIA SCUTIER, personal representative
of Kenneth Tonnemacher; PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE AGENCY; CAPITAL ONE
360; LUTHER PARK ASSISTED LIVING;
FIRST SUPERIOR COURT BONNER
COUNTY; STATE OF IDAHO ATTORNEY
GENERAL; FRED JOHNSTON, BK HILL,
LLC; STATE OF WASHINGTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL; COUNTY OF
KITTITAS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY;
COUNTY OF BONNER PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY IDAHO; STATE BAR IDAHO;
STATE BAR WASHINGTON; UNITED
STATES TAXPAYER; IDAHO SUPREME
COURT; UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT; ACLU; and DOES 1-20,

20
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ~ 1

1

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. See ECF No. 13. On

2

July 7, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was dismissed without prejudice and with leave

3

to amend. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs were ordered to file an Amended Complaint

4

within 60 days. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs were cautioned that their failure to amend

5

within 60 days would result in the dismissal of the entire case for failure to state a

6

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 15 at 10. Plaintiffs sought an

7

extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 16. The Court granted

8

the extension of time and allowed Plaintiffs 60 days from October 23, 2017 to file

9

an amended complaint. Although granted the opportunity to do so, Plaintiffs have

10

failed to amend their complaint. To date, they have failed to allege sufficient facts

11

to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Broughton v. Cutter

12

Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted).

13

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma

14

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The

15

good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an

16

individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v.

17

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an

18

appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

19

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ~ 2

1

The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good

2

faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the Court

3

hereby revokes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

4

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

5
6

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

7

2. Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis status is REVOKED.

8

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment

9

of dismissal without prejudice, forward a copy to Plaintiffs, and CLOSE the file.

10

DATED February 14, 2018.

11
12

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ~ 3