Carmichael v. Sacramento Regional Transit et al.

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/20/2018 ORDERING that the court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. The clerk's office is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit. (cc: USCA) (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GINA DIANE CARMICHAEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT,
et al.,

2:16-cv-2476-JAM-EFB

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS; DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO SERVE ORDER ON NINTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS

15
Defendants.
16
17
This matter is before the Court on referral by the Ninth
18
Circuit for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma
19
pauperis status should continue for the appeal. ECF No. 25.
20
“An appeal may not be taken in forma paurperis if the trial
21
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

“The good faith requirement is satisfied

23
if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is not
24
frivolous.”

Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977).

25
A claim is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in
26
law or in fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

27
The magistrate judge assigned to this case initially granted
28
1

1

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma paurperis.

2

No. 8.

3

complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter

4

jurisdiction.

5

allege a federal cause of action under any of the federal

6

statutes cited in the Complaint: neither 18 U.S.C. § 1001 nor the

7

Consumer Financial Protection Act provide for a private right of

8

action, and none of Plaintiff’s allegations were germane to the

9

Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Order, ECF

In the same order, however, he dismissed Plaintiff’s

Id.

Judge Brennan found that Plaintiff failed to

Id. at 3–4.

Diversity

10

jurisdiction could not apply because the parties were not

11

diverse.

12

to amend her complaint.

13

Id. at 4.

Judge Brennan gave Plaintiff an opportunity

Plaintiff filed a Seconded Amended Complaint and several

14

addenda that the magistrate judge construed collectively as the

15

operative complaint.

16

Recommendations (“F&Rs”), ECF No. 17.

17

again alleged claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531

18

and 5536 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and under the

19

Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

20

for the reasons set forth in the prior order of dismissal. F&Rs

21

at 4. Plaintiff also alleged a claim for violation of the

22

Administrative Procedure Act.

23

because Sacramento Regional Transit is not a federal agency.

24

at 5.

25

no relevance to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act.

26

And finally, the Court could not exercise jurisdiction over the

27

remaining state law claims because the parties are not diverse.

28

Id. at 5.

ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13; Findings and
The Operative Complaint

These claims were found deficient

This claim could not move forward
Id.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations were found to bear
Id. at 4–5.

After conducting a de novo review of the applicable
2

1

legal standards, this Court adopted the proposed findings and

2

recommendations and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint

3

without leave to amend.

4

ECF No. 20.

As explained in the magistrate judge’s orders and findings,

5

Plaintiff’s federal claims lack any arguable basis in law and are

6

therefore frivolous.

7

state claims irrespective of their merit.

8
9
10
11
12

There is no federal jurisdiction over her

For these reasons, the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s
appeal is not taken in good faith.

The clerk’s office is

directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2018

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3