Edward Ronje v. King et al

Filing 21

NOTICE and ORDER Finding that Plaintiff is NOT Entitled to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/9/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EDWARD RONJE,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01589-LJO-JLT (PC)
NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT
PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
(Doc. 20)

KING, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, Edward Ronje, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
on October 10, 2014. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Upon initial review, it was discovered that Plaintiff was challenging the assessment
protocol which resulted in his civil detention. Thus, on December 29, 2014, an order issued

21
giving Plaintiff thirty days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as barred by
22
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). (Doc. 8.) On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed
23
his response. (Doc. 11.) Findings and Recommendations issued on April 14, 2015, screening the
24
25
26
27

Complaint and finding that it did not state a cognizable claim and is barred by Heck. (Doc. 12.)
The Findings and Recommendations was served on Plaintiff that same date and allowed thirty
days for filing of objections. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff filed his objections on May 7, 2015 seeking
leave to amend. (Doc. 13.)

28
1

1

However, as accurately stated in the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s claims

2

either directly or indirectly challenge the validity of his confinement, which may only be pursued

3

in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff has failed to state any claims that are

4

cognizable under section 1983. Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint to change the nature of

5

claims he has raised in this suit to attempt to state a cognizable claim, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d

6

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) and the deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleadings are not capable of being

7

cured through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

Plaintiff filed timely objections on October 30, 2014 in which he persisted to complain of his

9

confinement. (Doc. 13.) The order adopting the Findings and Recommendations which

10

dismissed this action, found that this action was barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

11

477 (1994) and that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 14.)

12

On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 16.) On June 8, 2015, the Court

13

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of

14

determining whether in forma pauperis should continue for this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);

15

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). For the reasons which follow,

16

the Court finds that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal should be revoked. Id.

17

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it

18

is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The test for allowing an appeal in forma

19

pauperis is easily met; the good faith requirement is satisfied if the appellant seeks review of any

20

issue that is not frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing

21

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917 (1962)); see also Hooker v. American

22

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (if at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, the

23

appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole).

24

Despite repeated warnings of the parameters and application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512

25

U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994) to actions under section 1983, Plaintiff persisted to complain of the

26

protocols under which he is being civilly detained. Further, despite repeatedly being given the

27

legal standards that must be met to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff failed to do so -- which

28

makes all claims Plaintiff might hope to pursue on appeal frivolous. Plaintiff does not seek
2

1

review of any issue that is not frivolous.

2

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

3

1.

4
5

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19156(a)(3), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal was not

taken in good faith and he should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; and
2.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), the Clerk of the Court

6

shall serve this order on Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3