Flanagan v. Johnston et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (cc: USCA re: 24-6189). Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10

MARTHA MARIE FLANAGAN,
v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C24-5313 BHS
ORDER

KELLY R. JOHNSTON, et al.,

11

Defendant.

12
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Martha Marie Flanagan’s
December 6, 2024, motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, Dkt. 18.

15

On June 21, 2024, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s Report

16

and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 5, denied Flanagan’s application to proceed in forma

17

pauperis, dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim, and

18

entered a judgment. Dkts. 8, 9. Flanagan did not appeal.

19

The Court denied Flanagan’s motion to re-open the case on September 17, 2024.

20

Dkt. 13. Flanagan purported to file a notice of appeal of that order on October 8. Dkt. 14.

21
22

ORDER - 1

1

Flanagan now asks the Court to permit her to appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. 18.

2

Her motion is on a Ninth Circuit standard financial form, and it asserts that she has no

3

assets. The Court accepts that Flanagan is indigent and cannot afford the filing fee.

4

But proceeding in forma pauperis status also requires the plaintiff to state a

5

plausible claim, or make a showing that there is some potential merit to her appeal. See

6

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

7

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.).

8

The Court cannot conclude that Flanagan’s appeal is taken in good faith because it

9

does not have any substantive merit. First, the appeal is facially time-barred. The

10

underlying judgment, Dkt. 9, was entered six months ago. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)

11

(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order). Second, there is

12

no plausible merit to Flanagan’s underlying claims. See R&R, Dkt. 5, outlining the

13

deficiencies in Flanagan’s claim.

14
15

Flanagan’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis, Dkt. 18, is DENIED. The case
remains closed.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated this 7th day of January, 2025.

18

A

19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 2