Kocak

Filing 2

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny 1 Appellant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/29/2020. Referred to Judge Ishii. 14-day deadline. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

In re: JOHN IVAN KOCAK,

Case No. 1:20-mc-00026-AWI-SKO

Debtor/Appellant.

B.A.P. No. EC-19-1261

14

Bk. No. 18-11947

15

17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

18

(Doc. 1)

19

OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS

16

20
21
22

_____________________________________/
I.

INTRODUCTION

John Ivan Kocak (“Appellant”) is a prisoner in the custody of Valley State Prison. The

23
24

matter comes before this Court on Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

25 before the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”). (Doc. 1.)
26

As the BAP lacks authority to grant or deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

27 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Perroton v. Gray (In re Perroton), 958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992); Determan v.
28 Sandoval (In re Sandoval), 186 B.R. 490, 496 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), the BAP transferred

1

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis to this Court. As set forth below, the undersigned

2 recommends Appellant’s motion be denied.
3
4
5
6

II.

DISCUSSION

On May 15, 2018, Appellant filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition--his third in six months.
In re John Ivan Kocak, No. 18-11947 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2018); see also In re John Ivan Kocak, No.
18-10031 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2018); In re John Ivan Kocak, No. 17-14526 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2017).

7
8
9

On October 17, 2019, Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the BAP regarding the bankruptcy
court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s earlier order denying

10 Appellant’s motion to reopen the Chapter 7 case. (Doc. 1 at 16.) On February 28, 2020, Appellant
11 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the BAP. (Id. at 6–14.) The BAP
12 entered a notice giving the bankruptcy court the opportunity to “certif[y] in writing that [the appeal]
13

is not taken in good faith” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), which would require that Appellant’s

14
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.
15
16

On March 9, 2020, the bankruptcy court certified that Appellant’s appeal was not taken in

17 good faith. (Doc. 1 at 15–16.) The bankruptcy court noted that earlier in the Chapter 7 case,
18 Appellant had attempted to avoid a “nonpossessory, non-purchase-money security interest held by
19 the principal creditor, Scott Kernan, Secretary, CDCR and their agents” by filing a “Motion to
20 Avoid Lien.” (Id. at 16) (citation omitted). According to the bankruptcy court, Appellant
21
22

contended he could avoid a “lien” that CDCR held against “his person” and secure his release from
state prison that way. (Id.) As to Appellant’s appeal, the bankruptcy court found as follows:

23
24
25
26
27

The present appeal springs from a denial of a motion to reopen based on “new
evidence” that is “crucial” to this case. [Appellant] seeks to reopen his Chapter 7
“for the purpose of modifying his Creditors list/Schedules.” Ordinarily, this is
unnecessary. In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993). It appears to this court
that the attempt to reopen his Chapter 7 case was for the purpose of attacking once
again the “security interest” that the California Department of Corrections holds
against him and by which they now restrain him in Chowchilla State Prison.

28
2

1

(Id.) (internal record citations omitted). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court certified that the appeal

2 was not taken in good faith. (Id.) The bankruptcy court’s certification was forwarded to the BAP.
3 The BAP then transferred the motion to proceed in forma pauperis to this Court. (Doc. 1.)
4
5
6

The undersigned has independently reviewed Appellant’s request and concludes he is not
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Appellant states
that the bankruptcy court “violated it’s [sic] own rules by not permitting Appellant to reopen his

7
8
9

case to Amend Schedules to reflect clearly dischargeable debt which was created through Fraud
and deceit against appellant.” (Doc. 1 at 6.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not

10 be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”
11 The bankruptcy court certified in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith, as Appellant’s
12 contention regarding reopening his Chapter 7 case was frivolous. (See Doc. 1 at 15–16.)
13

The undersigned agrees with and adopts the findings of the bankruptcy court, (id. at 16), and

14
finds that the appeal is frivolous because, as noted by the bankruptcy court, reopening a Chapter 7
15
16

case for the purpose of amending the schedules, especially for the purpose that Appellant identifies

17 here—attacking the “security interest” that the California Department of Corrections holds against
18 him—is a “pointless exercise” under which no relief may be granted. See In re Beezley, 994 F.2d
19 at 1434.
20
21

Thus, the Court finds that Appellant’s appeal is not taken in good faith and Appellant’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to the BAP must be denied. See, e.g., Gjerde v.

22
Hawkins, No. 2:15-mc-103-KJM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2015), Doc. 3, findings and
23
24

recommendations adopted, No. 2:15-mc-103-KJM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015), Doc. 5; see

25 also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
26 certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”).
27
28
3

1

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Appellant’s motion

2

3 to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, (Doc. 1 at 6–14), be DENIED and this matter be
4 TRANSFERRED back to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
5

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Appellant at his address

6 listed on the docket for this matter.
7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

8 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14)
9 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and
10 recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
11 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge
12 will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
13 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
14 waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39
15 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated:
19

May 29, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

.