Muhammad v. Berreth et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/10/2013. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-02407 CRB

JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ON APPEAL

Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN J. BERRETH, et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

The Ninth Circuit has referred this case to this Court “for the limited purpose of

18

determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the

19

appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v.

20

American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).” The Court dismissed this case on

21

February 25, 2013, holding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to state a claim upon

22

which relief can be granted. See generally Order (dkt. 79). The amended complaint stems

23

from a state court case in which Plaintiff received a default judgment that was subsequently

24

revoked. Id. at 1. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, explaining that: (1) the Eleventh

25

Amendment barred Plaintiff’s claims against the Superior Court, and such claims asked this

26

Court to impermissibly review a state court judgment; (2) non-lawyers are not a protected

27

class under § 1985; and (3) Plaintiff could not state a claim against the individual defendants

28

under § 1983 because they are not state actors, and Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a

1

conspiracy with the Superior Court. Id. at 5. In the Court’s view, none of these holdings are

2

reasonably subject to dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the appeal is frivolous. In

3

forma pauperis should be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 10, 2013
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\2407\Order re IFP appeal.wpd

2