Sing v. Mineral County et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/25/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status is thus REVOKED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for filing on the docket of Case No. 14-17224. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 19 is DENIED. (cc Ninth Circuit)(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAM SING,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-02170-MCE-GGH
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MINERAL COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff Ram Sing (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
18
brought this civil action arising out of his purportedly illegal prosecution by officials in
19
Mineral County, Nevada. Compl., ECF No. 1. On February 26, 2013, the Court
20
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. Order, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed a Notice
21
of Appeal on November 6, 2014. ECF No. 15. On November 12, 2014, the United
22
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to this Court for the
23
limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should
24
continue on appeal or whether that status should be revoked because the appeal is
25
frivolous or taken in bad faith. ECF No. 18; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
26
Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith because he fails to present an
27
“arguable basis in fact or law” to support his position. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614,
28
617 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed, the Court already dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as frivolous
1
1
once. See ECF No. 13. Plaintiff sought to enjoin his criminal prosecution in Nevada.
2
Accordingly, this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over at least the county Defendant.
3
ECF No. 5 at 3. Similarly, venue is improper in this Court. Id. Finally, even if those
4
obstacles did not sufficiently preclude Plaintiff’s claims, they are also barred by the
5
Younger abstention doctrine. Id. at 3-4 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
6
Accordingly, for a number of reasons, both the complaint filed in this Court and Plaintiff’s
7
current appeal are frivolous.
8
9
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is thus REVOKED. The Clerk of the Court is
ordered to TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of the United States
10
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for filing on the docket of Case No. 14-17224.
11
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: November 25, 2014
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?