Allen v. Diaz
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Charles Allen v. Ralph Diaz (2023-08-22) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit referred the case to the district court to determine if the plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) status should continue on appeal or if the appeal was frivolous. The court ordered that the appeal is not frivolous and that the plaintiff's IFP status should continue on appeal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) status is continued on appeal.“Upon review of Allen’s notice of appeal, the Court concludes that the appeal is not frivolous or taken in bad faith, and that the IFP status should continue on 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 a district court to certify that an appeal is not taken in good faith or is frivolous to deny IFP status on appeal. The court cited Neitzke v. Williams for the definition of a frivolous appeal. While the order does not detail the specific facts or legal arguments in the notice of appeal that led to the conclusion that it was not frivolous, the procedural mechanism and legal standard applied are correct. The decision follows the law as recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the statutory and rule-based framework for determining IFP status on appeal. It cites the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Neitzke) for the definition of frivolousness. However, the order is very brief and does not provide any factual or legal analysis of the specific notice of appeal to support the conclusion that it is not frivolous. It simply states the conclusion. While the result is likely correct given the high bar for finding an appeal frivolous at this stage, the lack of reasoning makes it a 'sound with gaps' opinion as it skips the application of the standard to the specific facts.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN, Case No.: 21cv0602-LAB (RBM) CDCR # D-76353 12 ORDER RE REFERRAL NOTICE ON Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. STATUS ON APPEAL 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is a referral notice by the Ninth Circuit, dated July 27, 2022, 19 that seeks a determination whether Plaintiff Charles Edward Allen’s in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) status should be continued on appeal or whether the Court finds 21 the appeal to be frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Dkt. 28). Allen filed his notice of 22 appeal of the clerk’s judgment in this case on July 22, 2022. (Dkt. 25). 23 “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 24 writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Rule 24(a) of the 25 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that: 26 [a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be 27 1 financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 2 without further authorization, unless: (A) the district court— 3 before or after the notice of appeal is filed—certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party 4 is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and 5 states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or (B) a statute provides otherwise. 6 7 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous 8 if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 9 (1989). 10 Upon review of Allen’s notice of appeal, the Court concludes that the appeal 11 is not frivolous or taken in bad faith, and that the IFP status should continue on 12 appeal. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 29, 2022 15 Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27