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)

Download PDF
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?