Sconiers v. Judicial Council of CA, et al.

Filing 76

ORDER Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's Request to File Appeal In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/11/12. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JANETTA SCONIERS,

10

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS
APPEAL NO.

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.

12
13

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

(Doc. 75)
/

16
Plaintiff has requested waiver of the filing fee for an appeal in the above-captioned case.

17
18

Without evaluating the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the Court acknowledges that

19

Plaintiff may reasonably challenge the order declaring her a vexatious litigant. Nonetheless, the

20

Court recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motion to file in forma pauperis in light of her failure to

21
22

provide the financial information required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and of

23

her previously demonstrated ability to pay the filing fee.

24

I.

25
26

Procedural Background
On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff, by her attorney, Ralston L. Courtney, filed a 569-page

complaint against 67 named defendants and 50 “John Doe” defendants alleging numerous causes

27
1

1

of action and seeking multiple forms of relief. The District Court struck the complaint, which

2

Courtney had failed to sign, and directed Plaintiff and Courtney to carefully review F.R.Civ. P. 8

3
and 11 before re-filing the complaint. On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff responded by re-filing the
4
5
6

original complaint, ostensibly signed by Attorney Courtney, and filing the first three of numerous
motions challenging the jurisdiction and integrity of the District Court and its judges.

7

On March 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the first of three Orders to Show Cause

8

Why the Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11.

9

Plaintiff responded to the first two Orders to Show Cause by filing interlocutory appeals to the

10
11

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court dismissed the first appeal for failure to comply

12

with the court’s order and denied the second appeal. Plaintiff and her attorney failed to appear to

13

answer the third Order to Show Cause on November 16, 2011. As a result, the Magistrate Judge

14

filed Findings and Recommendations recommending that the complaint be dismissed for

15

Plaintiff’s failure to follow court rules, that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant, and that

16
17

Plaintiff’s attorney, Ralston L. Courtney, be reprimanded and sanctioned for his failure to comply

18

with F.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The District Court entered an order adopting the Findings and

19

Recommendations on December 13, 2011.

20

II.

21

Ralston L. Courtney
Plaintiff purports to bring this appeal in propria persona on behalf of both herself and her

22
23

former attorney Ralston L. Courtney. Because Plaintiff is not an attorney, she may not represent

24

Mr. Courtney in this appeal.

25

///

26

///

27
2

1

III.

2

Recommendation to Require Plaintiff’s Payment of Filing Fee
Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis did not include an affidavit in the form set

3
forth as Form 4 in the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The
4
5
6

motion submitted cannot be considered tantamount to Form 4 since it fails to provide the
financial information required by Form 4.

7

Plaintiff has demonstrated to this Court that she has the means to pay the fee when

8

payment suits her own purposes. Beginning with her filing of Sconiers v. Whitmore, et al. (1:09-

9

cv-02168-OWW-SKO), Plaintiff has paid the filing fee for her District Court cases, arguing that

10
11
12

the Court could not then screen her pro se complaints, as provided by the general orders of this
district, since she was not proceeding in forma pauperis.

13
14

Accordingly, the Court recommends that, having demonstrated the financial ability to pay
the filing fee, Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

January 11, 2012

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3