Roberts v. Studio 15 Management
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis after the district court dismissed her amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, revoked her IFP status for the appeal, and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal denied“Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of the appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal not taken in good faith.” | disagree with court · procedure The court's reasoning is internally contradictory and legally erroneous. It states that the appeal is taken in 'good faith' but simultaneously concludes it 'lacks any arguable basis in law or fact and is frivolous.' Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Rule 24(a)(3), an appeal is taken in good faith if it is non-frivolous. By finding the appeal frivolous, the court correctly identified the basis for certification, but its contradictory assertion that the appeal is 'in good faith' undermines the logical coherence of the order. However, the ultimate result—certifying the appeal as not taken in good faith because it is frivolous—is consistent with the law if the underlying dismissal was correct. The court relies on its prior sua sponte dismissal to make this determination. |
The order itself: questionable — The order is questionable because it contains a direct logical contradiction. The court states, 'it concludes that the appeal is taken in “good faith” and lacks any arguable basis in law or fact and is frivolous.' These two conclusions are mutually exclusive under the cited authority (Hooker v. American Airlines), which defines good faith as non-frivolous. While the final order (certifying not in good faith) aligns with the frivolous finding, the reasoning text is incoherent. Additionally, the court relies on its prior dismissal to make the frivolous determination without providing a detailed analysis of why the specific legal arguments in the appeal are frivolous, though this is common in such orders.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, an individual, Case No.: 22-cv-967-GPC(AGH)
11 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER DENYING 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 STUDIO 15 MANGENT, RUTH ON APPEAL RIVERIA, JOLINDA QUILTIA, 14 Defendants. 15 [Dkt. No. 22.] 16 17 On August 18, 2022, the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), sua sponte dismissed 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to amend because 19 the complaint failed to present short and plain statements with legally relevant facts to 20 support a cause of action.1 (Dkt. No. 15.) On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of 21 appeal of the Court’s order. (Dkt. No. 21.) Concurrently, she also filed a motion for 22 leave to appeal in forma pauperis on appeal indicating she cannot pay the filing fee. 23 (Dkt. No. 22.) 24 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that 25 [a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district- 26 27 1 On August 4, 2022, the Court had previously, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a 28 claim with leave to amend because Plaintiff had not presented a short and plain statement of the claim. 1 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 is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds 3 that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and A states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or (B) a statute provides otherwise. 5 6 R. App. P. 24(a)(3). An appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any 7 issue that is “non-frivolous.” See Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th 8 2002). A complaint is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” 9 || O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). Based on the Court’s ruling sua 10 || sponte dismissing the complaint for failing to state a claim, it concludes that the appeal is 11 taken in “good faith” and lacks any arguable basis in law or fact and is frivolous. 12 || Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is 13 ||} REVOKED for purposes of the appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 14 || notify the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal 15 not taken in good faith. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. '7 Dated: February 14, 2023 (7}.2nho (0 18 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curtel 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28