Warrior v. Solorio, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/23/2017 denying Motion to vacate Judgment and finding that Plaintiff's Appeal is frivolous re 15 , 20 . (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
MARVELLOUS AFRIKAN WARRIOR,

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01480-AWI-MJS (PC)

7
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
JEANETTE SOLORIO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER FINDING
THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL IS
FRIVOLOUS
(ECF Nos. 15, 20)

12
13
14

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

15

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff’s first

16

amended complaint was dismissed without leave to amend, and the matter was closed.

17

(ECF Nos. 13, 14.)

18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment, brought pursuant to

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff provides no basis for vacating the Court’s

20

judgment, reconsidering its prior ruling, or providing Plaintiff relief. The cases cited by

21

Plaintiff are inapposite.

22

Additionally, on March 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit referred this matter back to this

23

Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should

24

continue during Plaintiff’s appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.

25

See Doc. No. 20. After consideration, the Court concludes that the appeal is frivolous

26

within the meaning 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Plaintiff was previously informed of the

27

appropriate pleading standards, yet his amended complaint did not meet those

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

standards. Instead, the allegations remained conclusory, unclear, appeared to involve
separate and unrelated matters, and failed to contain sufficient factual allegations to
state plausible claims. No appellate issue that has an arguable basis in law or fact is
apparent. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990); see also In re Hawaii Corp., 796 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir.
1986). Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and that
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should not continue during appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3).

9
10
11
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED;

2.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in

13
14

forma pauperis in the appeal of this case;
3.

15

and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to

16
17
18

As required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), this Order serves as notice to the parties

proceed in forma pauperis for his appeal of this case; and
4.

The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: March 23, 2017

22

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2