FLORES v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Case No. C15-5013BHS.

ARNOLD FLORES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Arnold Flores, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

City of Lakewood, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC & Matthew S. Kaser , CITY OF LAKEWOOD.

Don Anderson, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Brett Farrar, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Paul Osness, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Joe Kolp, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Richard Hall, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Bryan Johnson, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

Dan Tenney, Defendant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC.

City of Lakewood, Counter Claimant, represented by George A. Mix , MIX SANDERS, PLLC & Matthew S. Kaser , CITY OF LAKEWOOD.

Arnold Flores, Counter Defendant, Pro Se.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Arnold Flores's ("Flores") motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. 121.

On September 30, 2016, the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment because no questions of material fact remained for trial. Dkt. 114. On October 13, 2016, Flores filed objections. Dkt. 115. On December 1, 2016, the Court adopted the R&R, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and revoked Flores' in forma pauperis status. Dkt. 116.

"[A]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In this context, an appeal is taken in "good faith" where it seeks review of any issue that is "non-frivolous." Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is "frivolous if it has `no arguable basis in fact or law.'" OLoughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).

At summary judgment, there was no question of material fact and Defendants were clearly entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. While the record contained conflicting versions of the circumstances surrounding Flores's shooting, Flores relied on (1) his wife's testimony at his criminal trial that Flores took out of context (Dkt. 114 at 10) and (2) a medical report that showed he suffered from four wounds (id. at 12). However, Flores admitted that he doesn't remember being shot by the police (id. at 11-12) and overwhelming evidence directly contradicts Flores's version of the shooting, including video evidence.

The Court adopted the R&R and found that no reasonable juror would believe Flores. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). Indeed, there is no doubt that Flores was shot by police officers through a window from outside the bank while he was apparently armed and "engaged in the severe crimes of assault in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and six counts of unlawful imprisonment, for which he received a significantly long sentence." See Dkt. 114 at 18. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that an appeal regarding "police excessive force" (Dkt. 121 at 1) is frivolous, and Flores's appeal is not taken in good faith.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Flores's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. 121) and his motion for transmission (Dkt. 123) are DENIED. The Clerk shall immediately inform the parties and the Court of Appeals as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). Flores may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis directly with the Court of Appeals within thirty days after receiving notice of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases