Limpin v. Newsom
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit referred the case to the district court to determine if the plaintiff's appeal should proceed in forma pauperis or if it was frivolous. The court certified the appeal as frivolous and revoked the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Certification that the appeal is frivolous and revocation of in forma pauperis status“Accordingly, the Court certifies that Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous therefore REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Neitzke v. Williams, which defines a frivolous appeal as one lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. The underlying dismissal was based on the well-established rule that pro se litigants cannot prosecute qui tam suits, a rule the court correctly cited. Because the appeal challenges a dismissal based on this jurisdictional/procedural bar, it lacks an arguable legal basis. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the standard for frivolous appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Neitzke. It correctly identifies the legal basis for the underlying dismissal (prohibition on pro se qui tam suits) and the basis for denying counsel (exceptional cases standard). The conclusion that the appeal is frivolous follows logically from the fact that the underlying dismissal was based on a clear legal bar that the plaintiff has not overcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES ex rel. MELCHOR Case No.: 23-cv-0399-DMS-DEB KARL T. LIMPIN, 12 ORDER RESPONDING TO Plaintiff, 13 REFERRAL NOTICE v. 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Relator Melchor Karl T. Limpin, proceeding pro se, brings this qui tam 19 action against California Governor Gavin Newsom, California State Senate President pro 20 tempore Toni G. Atkins, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, various Doe individual 21 defendants and their respective employers for colluding to violate the False Claims Act 22 (“FCA”) by permitting “unauthorized foreigners” to obtain COVID-19 relief, file tax 23 returns, and receive Medicaid benefits. 24 On April 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. 25 (ECF No. 6.) On October 24, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 26 and granted the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) Accordingly, the Court 27 denied Plaintiff’s pending motions as moot. (Id.) On December 7, 2023, the Court denied 28 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a 1 || Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 2 3 The Ninth Circuit now refers this matter to the trial court for the “limited purpose of 4 ||determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether 5 ||the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” (ECF No. 39.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 6 || provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court “certifies in 7 || writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal is considered “frivolous” under 28 8 |}U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) if the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 9 || Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). 10 Upon review of the record herein, the Court finds Plaintiffs appeal lacks an arguable 11 |/basis in law or in fact. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant 12 such litigants may not prosecute a gui tam suit against the United States. Stoner v. 13 Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, the 14 ||/Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel because “appointment of counsel 15 should be allowed only in exceptional cases,” and the Court did not find Plaintiff's suit to 16 || be one of those exceptional cases. U.S. ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th 17 || Cir. 1965). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration failed to address these issues and was 18 || dismissed as meritless. Accordingly, the Court certifies that Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous 19 therefore REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 20 || 1915(a)(3). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2» J \ 22 ||Dated: January 3, 2024 rr bn Yn. 23 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge A United States District Court 25 26 27 28