Govind v. Felker et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by District Judge Otis D. Wright, II on 8/31/2011 ORDERING 16 Because Appellant is pursuing what in this court's opinion is a frivolous appeal, the district court REVOKES his IFP status. 53 (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL H. GOVIND,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Consolidated with 2:08-cv-01183-ODW

vs.

14
15

No.2:06-cv-02467-ODW

REVOCATION OF IN FORMA
DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,

16

Defendant.

17

PAUPERIS STATUS

_________________________________

18
19

Daniel H. Govind, a person in state custody, has brought this civil action alleging all manner

20

of violations of his civil rights. Following Magistrate Judge Dale Drozd’s screening of the prolix and

21

nearly incomprehensible complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a), appellant was cautioned as to

22

the minimum standards necessary to adequately state a cause of action on his various claims. Over

23

the ensuing years defendants were dropped from the action either because they were not served, were

24

not even mentioned in the complaint, or voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed.

25

On October 14, 2008 Appellant’s application for IFP status was granted in case number 06-

26

02467. See Docket [41]. Five months later on March 9, 2009 that case was consolidated with case

27

number 08-01183. [21] The issue of the continuation of his IFP status for the purposes of his appeal

28

has been referred to this court by order of the Ninth Circuit on August 26, 2011. [56] In this courts

1

view, the appeal is frivolous and the Appellant’s IFP status is revoked for the purpose of the appeal.

2

On August 15, 2011 Plaintiff- Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the District Court’s

3

refusal to grant a one year stay of this action [51]. The justification offered for the stay request was

4

that he “is not in good health and has a heavy burden on his shoulder (sic) attending school and

5

preparing for his examine. (sic)” [ 74], filed July 5, 2011, in case number 2:06-cv-02467 ODW. The

6

request for a stay was denied as moot. [51] There was no longer an active case. Appellant remained

7

oblivious to the fact that at the time of his request, this action had been dismissed June 27, 2011, see

8

docket entry [50].

9

The primary basis for the dismissal was Plaintiff’s refusal, following repeated admonitions,

10

to cooperate with discovery. Appellant continued to justify his refusal to cooperate with discovery

11

by stating that “[h]e also informed the court and Williams and Associates (the law firm representing

12

the Defendants / Appellees) that he will not take part in Deposition or Answer any questions, because

13

everything has been said in petitions (sic) civil rights claim.” (Motion For Stay Until December 2011

14

Without Prejudice to Either Party ” page 1, [74].

15
16

It is the court’s view that this appeal is frivolous given that it lacks an arguable basis in either

17

law or fact, for the relief being sought, i.e. a one year stay of this action. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

18

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Putting aside the specious nature of his claims raised in his complaint which

19

reads like a journal chronically the discomforts of life in prison, Appellant apparently has no

20

intention of prosecuting this suit, assuming it were reinstated.

21

to engage in discovery or comply with orders and instructions of the court. With the repetitious

22

requests that the court appoint counsel for him to assist in the prosecution of this civil rights case he

23

has become something of a drain on our limited judicial resources. In the final analysis, his claims

24

are of questionable merit and the basis of his appeal is of no merit whatsoever, assuming that it is an

25

appealable order.

26

///

27

///

28

///

Moreover he steadfastly refuses

1

Because Appellant is pursuing what in this court’s opinion is a frivolous appeal, the district court

2

revokes his IFP status.

3
4
5

DATED:

August 31, 2011

______________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3.