Todd v. Bevins et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/13/12: Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status for appeal is REVOKED because the appeal is frivolous. (cc: USCA) (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DEREK TODD,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-0708 MCE KJN PS

vs.

13

DONALD BEVINS et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff Derek Todd, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis,

17

originally filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 21, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) On

18

December 5, 2012, the district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations

19

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules

20

of Civil Procedure be granted and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. Nos. 22,

21

25.) On December 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 27.)

22

Thereafter, on December 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directed

23

the court to determine whether in forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal or whether

24

the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. For the reasons stated in the September 17, 2012

25

findings and recommendations, subsequently adopted by the district judge’s December 5, 2012

26

order, the court finds that the appeal is frivolous, and that it is appropriate to revoke plaintiff’s in
1

1

forma pauperis status for purposes of the appeal.1

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status for appeal is REVOKED because the appeal

4

is frivolous; and

5

2. The Clerk of Court shall serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of

6

Appeals.

7

DATED: December 13, 2012

8
9
10

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff is a frequent filer of frivolous actions in this
court, with approximately 15 cases filed in 2011-2012, the majority of which have already been
dismissed. For example, plaintiff frequently files actions against judges and social workers
involved with his child custody cases and/or family law matters. See e.g. 2:11-cv-2346-LKKDAD (involving state court judge); 2:11-cv-2598-GEB-JFM (involving state court judge); 2:12cv-470-JAM-GGH (involving social worker); 2:12-cv-1379-MCE-GGH (involving state court
judge). Plaintiff appears to be using the federal court system for the nefarious purpose of
harassing the state court decision makers and others involved in his child custody cases and/or
family law matters.
2