Dunn v. Harris

Filing 32

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/31/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Northern District of California

7
8

MICHAEL DUNN,

9

No. C 11-3343 MEJ
Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

v.
10
KAMALA HARRIS,
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

13
14

On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Dunn filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth

15

Circuit, challenging this Court's October 25 Order granting Defendant Kamala Harris's Motion to

16

Dismiss. Dkt. No. 27. The Ninth Circuit has referred the matter to this Court for the limited purpose

17

of determining whether Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be denied for his appeal because it

18

is frivolous. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that his appeal is frivolous and in

19

forma pauperis status should no longer apply.

20
21

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on July 7, 2011 against Defendant Kamala Harris in her role as

22

Attorney General of California. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that the California Department of

23

Justice had wrongfully refused to return guns that he owned. Id. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss

24

on September 7, 2011. Dkt. No. 13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court

25

granted this Motion on October 25. Dkt. No. 24. The Court found that Plaintiff's claims were barred

26

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits district courts from exercising jurisdiction over

27

lawsuits that are essentially appeals from state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

28

263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Additionally, the

1

Court found that because the California Court of Appeal had already determined that Plaintiff was

2

not entitled to have any of his weapons returned to him or sold for his benefit, his federal lawsuit

3

was barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine. See Dunn v. Cnty. of Mendocino, 2008 WL 5156484

4

(Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2009).

5

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 1, 2011, which was denied by this

6

Court on the ground that it established no basis under Civil Local Rule 7–9(b) upon which the Court

7

could reconsider its Order. Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff then filed his Notice of Appeal challenging this

8

Court's Order dismissing the case. Dkt. No. 28.

9
10

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." The good faith requirement is satisfied if

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is "not frivolous." Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551

13

(9th Cir. 1977). For purposes of Section 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in

14

law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

15

1225 (9th Cir. 1984).

16

III. DISCUSSION

17

The Court finds that Defendant's appeal is frivolous because it lacks any arguable basis in

18

law or fact. As the Court explained last year, claims that state court decisions were erroneous are

19

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

20

Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rooker-Feldman specifically

21

prohibits a federal district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de

22

facto appeal from a state court judgment). In his claim, Plaintiff challenged forfeiture proceedings

23

that the state court had previously dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 24 at 5. Because this

24

claim was effectively contesting the outcome of the prior forfeiture proceedings in state court, the

25

Court found that it was barred by Rooker-Feldman. Id. Plaintiff fails to present any reasons for why

26

this doctrine would not apply to his claim.

27

The doctrine of collateral estoppel also leads this Court to conclude that Plaintiff's appeal is

28
2

1

frivolous. Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues of both law and fact if those issues were

2

conclusively determined in a prior action. United States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165, 170-71

3

(1984). Collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating an issue if four elements are met:

4

(1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous action; (2)
the issue was actually litigated; (3) there was final judgment on the merits; and (4) the
person against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to or in privity with a
party in the previous action.

5
6
7

Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1064 (9th Cir. 2010). In its Order granting Defendant's Motion

8

to Dismiss, this Court found that Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to present his claims,

9

including a trial on the merits and consideration by the California Court of Appeal. See Dunn, 2008

Plaintiff raises in his federal lawsuit, and he is the plaintiff in both cases. Plaintiff's state court

12
For the Northern District of California

WL 5156484. These proceedings, which resulted in a final judgment, addressed the same issues

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

proceedings therefore foreclose his federal action based on the same issues. Accordingly, based on

13

the Rooker-Feldman and collateral estoppel doctrines, Plaintiff's claim is meritless.

14
15
16
17

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Order certifies that Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous and not taken
in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 31, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
2
3
MICHAEL DUNN,

Case Number: CV11-03343 MEJ

4
Plaintiff,
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.

6
KAMALA HARRIS et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 31, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17

Michael Dunn
P.O. Box 1468
Laytonville, CA 95454
Dated: January 31, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4