Robertson et al v. DLJ Mortgage Capital Incorporated et al

Filing 71

ORDER that the Court certifies that this appeal is not taken in good faith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Permission to Appeal InForma Pauperis, doc. 69 , is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 11/13/2012.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Sherwin Dennis Robertson, et al., 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-8033-PCT-LOA ORDER 15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permission to Appeal In 16 Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 69) 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint to Quiet Title to Real Property; Judgment Divesting 19 Title; Forcible Entry and Detainer on February 22, 2012. (Doc. 1) Plaintiffs paid the filing 20 fee at that time. (Id.) The parties agreed to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge on February 21 28, 2012. (Docs. 4, 14) After several preliminary matters, the Court granted Defendants’ 22 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ pro se Amended Complaint for failure to state a plausible 23 claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 66) The Clerk entered judgment on October 24 11, 2012. (Doc. 67) On November 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of that 25 judgment, doc. 68, and the pending Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, 26 doc. 69. 27 28 1 II. Discussion 2 Plaintiffs did not initially seek in forma pauperis status in filing this action; rather, 3 they paid the filing fee in full. (Doc. 1) Nonetheless, Rule 24(a)(1), Federal Rules of 4 Appellate Procedure (“Fed.R.App.P.”), provides that a party may proceed in forma pauperis 5 on appeal if he or she files a motion in district court and attaches an affidavit that: 6 (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or give security for fees or costs; 7 (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and 8 (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. 9 10 However, Rule 24(a)(1), Fed.R.App.P., is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) of the Prison 11 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), applicable to all in forma pauperis appeals, not just those 12 filed by prisoners, which provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if 13 the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” See O’Neal v. Price, 531 14 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2008); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 15 banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 16 prisoners.”). 17 The PLRA further provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 18 thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 19 determines that -- . . . (B)(i) the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also Plain Feather v. Preite, 2010 WL 3037530, at *1 (D. Mont. 21 Aug. 4, 2010); Magee v. Hatch, 26 F. Supp. 2d 153, 155 (D.D.C. 1998) (“An in forma 22 pauperis proceeding is not taken in good faith if it is ‘frivolous or malicious.’”) (quoting 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United 24 States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law 25 or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 26 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). “Additionally, section 1915(e)(2)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to 27 a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual 28 allegation.’” Magee, 26 F. Supp. 2d at 155 In other words, “a legal claim may be deemed -2- 1 frivolous if it is wholly unsupported by law or facts.” Id. 2 Here, the Court finds and certifies in writing that Plaintiffs’ appeal is not taken in 3 good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court’s October 11, 2012 Order explained in 4 detail why Plaintiffs’ causes of action challenging the trustee’s sale of the property and the 5 validity of the various documents relating to the property’s title and deed are without any 6 arguable legal or factual merit. See Robertson v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., 2012 WL 7 4840033 (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012). The Court’s finding, however, does not prevent Plaintiffs 8 from filing a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the Ninth Circuit Court of 9 Appeals pursuant to, and in compliance with, Rule 24(a)(5), Fed.R.App.P. O’Neal, 531 F.3d 10 at 1150 (citations omitted). 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Court certifies that this appeal is not taken in good faith. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permission to Appeal In 14 15 Forma Pauperis, doc. 69, is DENIED. Dated this 13th day of November, 2012. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?