People of the State of California v. Wichelman

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/11/14 ORDERING that Defendant's in forma pauperis status is revoked; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of this determination pursuant to the appellate court's Referral Notice. (cc USCA)(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0091 TLN AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KARL WICHELMAN,
Defendant.

16
17

This action was removed on January 16, 2013 from the Sacramento County Superior

18

Court by defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. On that day, defendant also filed an application

19

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). By order dated March 20, 2013, the application to proceed

20

IFP was granted, and it was recommended that this action be dismissed as improperly removed.

21

This recommendation was based on the finding that, although the caption in both this case and

22

that filed in state court identifies Karl Wichelman as the defendant, he was in fact the party that

23

initiated the lawsuit. See ECF No. 1 at 7-14. The recommendation for dismissal was adopted by

24

the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on March 6, 2014, and this action was dismissed. ECF Nos. 12-

25

13. Defendant thereafter filed a timely appeal. ECF No. 14.

26

On April 11, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred this matter to the district

27

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

28

this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
1

1

An appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “nonfrivolous.”

2

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is “frivolous” if it

3

has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

4

1990).

5

Here, defendant’s Notice of Appeal reveals his intent to argue that he has standing to

6

challenge unidentified State statutes. Lack of standing was not a basis for the dismissal of this

7

action, however. Defendant has not addressed the court’s conclusion that, notwithstanding the

8

caption of this case, defendant was the filing party in state court and therefore may not remove

9

this case to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). The undersigned, having fully considered the

10

matter, finds that reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s resolution of

11

defendant’s claims, nor could reasonable jurists conclude the issues presented are adequate to

12

deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, any appeal would be frivolous or taken

13

in bad faith, and defendant’s IFP status should be revoked

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Defendant’s in forma pauperis status is revoked; and

16

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the

17
18

Ninth Circuit of this determination pursuant to the appellate court’s Referral Notice.
DATED: April 11, 2014

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2