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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?