Hood v. U.S. Government

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 17 21 25 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

No. 12-1788
ROBIN HOOD, et al.,

8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

US GOVERNMENT, et al.,

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; REVOKING IN
FORMA PAUPERS STATUS

Defendants.
___________________________________/

12
13

On June 18, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

14

which authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the Court

15

determines the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Order

16

Dismissing Case, Dkt. 18. On July 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reconsider and Authenticate

17

Documents.” See Dkt. 21. On July 31, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On August 6, 2012, the

18

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case to this Court for the limited purpose of determining

19

whether IFP status should continue for this appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad

20

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

21
22
23
24
25

With respect to the motion to reconsider, that request is DENIED. Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows
a party to seek reconsideration where it can show
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the
interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must
show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order; or

26
27
28

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the
time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive
legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory
order.

1

Civ. L. R. 7-9. Plaintiff makes no such showing. He states only that, “[a]s this kind of dismissal goes

2

to the plaintiff case, as it goes to running a corrupt justice system that clearly is throwing cases as

3

plaintiffs can not receive a fair trial or due process of law and these documents might be used to show

4

such corruption at trial in which so many other who might cite this action to have Federal and State

5

Judges disbarred if such signature is found to be seen as a cover-up and authenticated.” Dkt. 21 at 1.

6

It appears plaintiff’s concern is that the undersigned judge’s signature was forged on the Order

7

Dismissing Case. This is not a reason to warrant a motion for reconsideration. See Civ. L. R. 7-9.
With respect to the Referral Notice, the Ninth Circuit requests that this Court determine whether

9

IFP status should continue for plaintiff’s appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

See Referral Notice, No. 12-16691, dkt. 3 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American

11

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is appropriate where

12

district court finds the appeal to be frivolous)). This Court granted plaintiff IFP status, dismissed his

13

original, unintelligible complaint, and granted him leave to amend. See dkt. 8. The Court stated that

14

plaintiff’s amended complaint “must set forth this Court’s jurisdiction, plaintiff’s standing to sue, what

15

the nature of his claim is, a short and plain statement of those claims, against whom he is bringing them,

16

and most importantly, a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff’s

17

amended complaint failed to abide by any of those instructions, and the Court dismissed the case with

18

prejudice. See Dkts. 10 and 18. The Court now finds that the appeal is frivolous, and hereby

19

REVOKES plaintiff’s IFP status.1

20

Dockets 17, 21 and 25.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: August 10, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

On June 15, 2012, plaintiff filed another document entitled “Declaration of (1443
Defendant)/Plaintiff Motion to Vacate State Court Rulings and Transfer Case to Related Case.” See
Dkt. 17. It is similarly difficult to comprehend. Insofar as the document is a motion, this case is now
closed, and the motion is DENIED. No further documents or motions shall be filed in this closed case.
2