Sconiers v. Whitmore et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 18 Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in Six Frivolous Appeals signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/23/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANETTA SCONIERS,

12

Case No. 1:06-cv-01260-AWI-LJO

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS IN SIX FRIVOLOUS
APPEALS

vs.
13
14

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

15

Defendants.
/

16
JANETTA SCONIERS,

Case No. 1:08-cv-01288-LJO-SMS

17
Plaintiff,
18
vs.
19
CLARENCE WHITMORE, JR., et al.,
20
Defendants.
21
22

/
JANETTA SCONIERS,

23

Case No. 1:08-cv-01289-AWI-DLB

Plaintiff,

24

vs.

25

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

26

Defendants.
/

27
28
1

1

TIYEONDREA McGLOTHIN, et al.,

2

Case No. 1:08-cv-01290-LJO-GSA

Plaintiffs,

3

vs.

4

MARIO SANTOS, et al.,

5

Defendants.
/

6
JANETTA SCONIERS,

Case No. 1:09-cv-02168-LJO-SKO

7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
CLARENCE WHITMORE, JR., et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

/
JANETTA SCONIERS,

13

Case No. 1:10-cv-01130-AWI-SMS

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15

M. BRUCE SMITH, et al.,

16

Defendants.
/

17
18
19

On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers filed a notice of appeal in each of the six

20

above-entitled cases, requesting waiver of the filing fee for each appeal. Because each appeal is

21

frivolous and malicious, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for waivers of the filing fees.

22

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers filed motions for relief from judgment in

23

each of the six above-entitled actions. In compliance with this Court’s order of December 13,

24

2011 in Sconiers v. Fresno County Superior Court (Case No. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS), which

25

declared Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers a vexatious litigant and ordered pre-filing review of any

26

complaint, motion, or other legal document lodged with this Court, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s

27

motions and found each to be frivolous and malicious in that its purpose was to challenge the

28

Court’s authority and to litigate matters that Plaintiff Sconiers was foreclosed from litigating in
2

1

Sconiers v. Fresno County Superior Court (Case No. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS). Among other

2

things, each motion was untimely under F.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1), in most cases by several years.

3

Accordingly, the Court struck each of the six motions.

4

Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v.

5

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.), cert.

6

denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

7

A federal court may dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis prior to service if it is satisfied that

8

the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); see Sully v. Lungren, 842 F.Supp.

9

1230, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1994). If a plaintiff with in forma pauperis status brings a case without

10

arguable substance in law and fact, the court may declare the case frivolous. Franklin, 745 F.2d

11

at 1227.

12

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

13

1.

Each of the six above-titled appeals is declared frivolous;

14

2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma

15

pauperis in her appeal of Sconiers v. California Department of Social Services,

16

1:06-cv-01260-AWI-LJO;

17

3.

pauperis in her appeal of Sconiers v. Whitmore, 1:08-cv-01288-LJO-SMS;

18
19

4.

5.

6.

7.

28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in Sconiers v. Smith, 1:10-cv-01130-AWI-SMS;

26
27

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in her appeal of Sconiers v. Whitmore, 1:09-cv-02168-LJO-SKO;

24
25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in her appeal of McGlothin v. Santos, 1:08-cv-01290-LJO-GSA;

22
23

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in her appeal of Sconiers v. Schwarzenegger, 1:08-cv-01289-AWI-DLB;

20
21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma

8.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this Order serves as
notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
3

1

of the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for these

2

six appeals;

3

9.

4

The Clerk of Court is directed to collect from Plaintiff the filing fee of $455.00 for
each of her six appeals, for a total amount due of $2730.00; and

5

10.

6

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
b9ed48

February 23, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4