IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SUBRINA POUPAK SEHAT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

ILLINOIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:14-CV-01433-PK 

ORDER 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 3 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 4 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 5 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 6 of 9
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: 

7 - ORDER 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 7 of 9
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 

\ 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 8 of 9
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 239 Filed 03/08/17 Page 9 of 9