Qassimy Ar v. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) San Diego Field Office
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Ninth Circuit referral notice asking whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal or if the appeal was frivolous. The court revoked the plaintiff's IFP status and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked for purposes of the appeal.“Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of the appeal” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3), which requires certification that an appeal is not taken in good faith to deny IFP status on appeal. The court relied on its prior dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, citing specific allegations it found 'fanciful' and 'delusional.' Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Hooker v. Am. Airlines), an appeal is not taken in good faith if it is frivolous. Because the underlying complaint was dismissed as frivolous, the appeal of that dismissal lacks a non-frivolous basis, supporting the certification. |
The court certifies that the plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith.“the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith” | agree with court The certification is a prerequisite for denying IFP status on appeal. The court's finding that the appeal is frivolous because the underlying claims were dismissed as frivolous is consistent with the legal standard that an appeal must present at least one non-frivolous issue to be taken in good faith. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for denying IFP status on appeal (certification of bad faith/frivolousness). It applies the standard by relying on its prior dismissal of the complaint as frivolous. The court cites appropriate Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority to support the proposition that an appeal of a frivolous complaint is not taken in good faith. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKHTAR QASSIMYAR, an individual, Case No.: 3:24-cv-02109-RBM-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REVOKING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI); STACEY 15 [Doc. 8] MOY; DOES 1 THROUGH 500, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Presently before the Court is the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23 Referral Notice. (Doc. 8.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred the matter to 24 this Court to determine whether Plaintiff-Appellant Akhtar Qassimyar (“Plaintiff”) should 25 be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, or whether the appeal is 26 frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Id. at 1.) 27 On November 27, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP but 28 dismissed his Complaint (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) as frivolous and for failure to 1 state a claim without leave to amend. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff appealed the Court’s dismissal 2 order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 5.) Because Plaintiff lacks any good- 3 faith basis for his appeal of the dismissal order, he cannot maintain his IFP status, and it is 4 therefore REVOKED. 5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that: 6 [a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further 7 authorization, unless: (A) the district court--before or after the notice of appeal 8 is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in 9 writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or (B) a statute provides 10 otherwise. 11 12 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma 13 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith”). An appeal 14 is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.” See 15 Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); Ellis v. United States, 356 16 U.S. 674 (1958) (“In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant’s good 17 faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.”). A 18 complaint is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 19 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). Parties must present at least one non-frivolous issue or claim 20 to justify that critical “good faith” finding. See id. 21 Based on its ruling dismissing the Complaint for failing to state a claim, the Court 22 concludes that the appeal lacks any arguable basis in law or fact and is frivolous. The 23 appeal is therefore not taken in “good faith.” Courts “often revoke IFP status when a 24 plaintiff’s claim faces an obstacle that simply cannot be overcome.” Allen v. Diaz, No. 20- 25 CV-1389 JLS (MDD), 2023 WL 6593834, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2023). As this Court 26 previously explained, the Complaint is replete with fanciful ideations that are fantastical, 27 delusional, irrational, and incredible concerning individuals and entities attempting to 28 assassinate Plaintiff and torturing him by depriving him of sleep through radar and remote 1 ||devices. (See Doc. 3 at 6-8.) “No matter how sincerely believed by Plaintiff, these 2 || allegations are simply too fantastic to warrant the expenditure of further judicial and private 3 ||resources.” Meyer v. World Bank, No. 3:19-cv-00017-GPC (JLB), 2019 WL 2009873, at 4 ||*3 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) (citation omitted); see also Adkins v. EI. DuPont de Nemours 5 || & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 337 (1948) (Courts have the “power to protect the public from having 6 || to pay heavy costs incident to the inclusion of ‘wholly unnecessary’ matters in an in forma 7 || pauperis appeal.”’). 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs in forma pauperis 9 || status is REVOKED for purposes of the appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED 10 || to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal 11 |}is not taken in good faith. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||DATE: January 7, 2025 15 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ'MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28