Gottschalk v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 118

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying #115 #117 Plaintiff's Motion for Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KARLA GOTTSCHALK,

9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

12
13

No. C-12-4531 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
(Docket No. 115, 117)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on August 12, 2013, finding that Plaintiff’s

17

third amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a)’s requirement to provide a short and plain

18

statement of her claims, and that it was instead rambling, confusing, and often incoherent. Docket

19

No. 111. These deficiencies remained despite the Court’s specific directions to Plaintiff in an earlier

20

order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Docket No. 44. The Court additionally found

21

that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support any of her claims, and that many of her claims

22

were barred by sovereign immunity or premised on legal theories that were not viable in any case.

23

Plaintiff has now filed a notice of appeal, and a motion for leave to pursue this appeal in

24

forma pauperis.1 Docket Nos. 113, 115, 117.

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

For reasons that are not clear, Plaintiff has not previously filed a request to proceed in
forma pauperis in this matter.

1

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), “a party to a district-court action who

2

desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(1).

3

“If the district court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in writing.” Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(2).

4

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

5

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit has

6

construed “not taken in good faith” to mean frivolous. See Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d

7

1091, 1092 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that “[i]f at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous,

8

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole”).

9

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s appeal frivolous. As noted in the Court’s previous orders,
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth intelligible facts or articulate a viable legal theory showing that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

she is entitled to relief. Despite opportunities to amend her complaint to remedy these problems,

12

Plaintiff failed to do so. Given the profound legal and factual deficiencies in the complaint, the

13

Court finds Plaintiff’s appeal to be frivolous.

14

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), the Clerk of the Court is instructed

15

to immediately notify the Ninth Circuit that this Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on

16

appeal in forma pauperis and certified in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Fed.

17

R.App. P. 24(a)(4).

18

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 115 and 117.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: August 23, 2013

23

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2