Sconiers v. Judicial Council of CA, et al.

Filing 87

ORDER RECOMMENDING Denial of Plaintiff's Request to File Appeal In Forma Pauperis 85 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/24/2012. *cc Court of Appeals. (Marrujo, C)

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. 85)
/

16
17

Plaintiff again requests waiver of the filing fee for her fourth appeal in the above-

18

captioned case. The Court recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motion to file in forma pauperis in

19

light of her failure to provide the financial information required by the Federal Rules of

20

Appellate Procedure and of her previously demonstrated ability to pay the filing fee.

21
22

I.

Procedural Background

23

On November 23, 2011, following a nearly year-long struggle to require Plaintiff to

24

comply with the provisions of F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

25

Recommendations recommending that the complaint in this matter be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

26

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

27
1

1

attorney, Ralston L. Courtney, be reprimanded and sanctioned for his failure to comply with

2

F.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The Magistrate Judge emphasized Plaintiff’s habit of repeatedly litigating the

3
same frivolous and malicious claims in order to vex those individuals who thwarted her personal
4
5

desires, and her growing disrespect of the judicial process and of judges and other court

6

personnel. The District Court entered an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations on

7

December 13, 2011. On January 10, 2012, Plaintiff appealed the order to the U.S. Court of

8

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

9

On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed six motions for relief from judgment pursuant to

10
11

F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in the six long-closed cases1 that she had attempted to re-litigate in this case.

12

On or about January 23, 2012, the District Court struck all six motions as malicious and

13

frivolous.

14
15

On January 20, 2012, this Court amended its December 13, 2011 order nunc pro tunc to
require pre-filing screening of motions and other documents lodged by Plaintiff in addition to the

16
17

pre-filing of complaints. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 299-page appeal of the amended

18

order.

19

II.

20
21

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

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

22
23

represent Mr. Courtney in this appeal.

24
25
26
27

1
The cases are Sconiers v. California Department of Social Services, 1:06-cv-1260-AW I-LJO; Sconiers v.
Whitmore, 1:08-cv-1288-LJO-SMS; Sconiers v. Swarzenegger, 1:08-cv-1289-OW W -DLB; McGlothin v. Santos,
1:08-cv-1290-LJO-GSA; Sconiers v. Whitmore, 1:09-cv-2168-OW W -SKO; and Sconiers v. Smith 1:10-cv-1130AW I-SMS.

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
8
9

Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

10
11

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

12

her own purposes. Beginning with her filing of Sconiers v. Whitmore, et al. (1:09-cv-02168-

13

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

14

could not then screen her pro se complaints, as provided by the general orders of this district,

15

since she was not proceeding in forma pauperis.

16
Accordingly, the Court recommends that, having demonstrated the financial ability to pay

17
18

the filing fee, Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

January 24, 2012

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

23
24
25
26
27
3