Shoaga v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 22

ORDER revoking in forma pauperis status on appeal re 21 USCA Order. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 06/04/2015. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

RAIMI SHOAGA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 3:14-cv-4000-CRB
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, ET AL.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred this matter to the

18

district court for the purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue

19

for the appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See Referral Notice

20

(dkt. 21).

21

This Court dismissed Shoaga’s initial complaint on September 19, 2014, for failure to

22

state a claim on which relief may be granted, and allowed leave to amend. Order re IFP and

23

Dismissal (dkt. 4). Shoaga filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 24, 2014.

24

FAC (dkt. 6). The Court then dismissed Shoaga’s FAC on December 16, 2014, for failure to

25

state a claim and again granted leave to amend. Order re IFP and Dismissal of FAC (dkt. 9).

26

On January 15, 2015, Shoaga filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). SAC (dkt. 13).

27

The Court dismissed the SAC with prejudice in a detailed order that determined Shoaga

28

failed to state a claim and that further amendment would be futile. Order

1

re IFP and Dismissal of FAC (dkt. 16).
Shoaga now appeals from that order, apparently without stating any grounds or

3

reasons on which his appeal is based. See Notice of Appeal (dkt. 1, Ninth Circuit 15-16007).

4

But in any event, Shoaga’s claims are frivolous and an appeal from this Court’s order of

5

dismissal lacks any basis in fact or law. The Court thus finds that Shoaga’s appeal is

6

frivolous and hereby revokes in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also

7

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Even if a party provides

8

proof of indigence, “an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies

9

in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is in “good

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “nonfrivolous.” Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092.

11

An issue is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920

12

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th

13

Cir.1984)).

14

The gravamen of Shoaga’s SAC is that “taxation in the United States is based on

15

voluntary compliance” and, as such, the IRS and other parties should not be acting to collect

16

taxes he has elected not to pay. See, e.g., SAC at 10. All of Shoaga’s claims stem from his

17

conclusion that “he has the freedom of choice to pay or not to pay income tax without any

18

legal obligation towards defendant,” id. at 17–18, a worn-out claim of tax denial that has

19

long been held to be “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.” See

20

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.1990); Wilcox v. Commissioner of

21

the Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008–09 (9th Cir.1988) (awarding sanctions against a

22

party for making this frivolous argument on appeal). “[P]aying taxes is not voluntary.”

23

Wilcox, 848 F.2d at 1008 (citing Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th

24

Cir.1986)). Finally, to the extent that Shoaga suggests some vague claim that the interest rate

25

on his federally guaranteed student loan is unenforceable, Shoaga neither alleges any facts or

26

law that could entitle him to relief, nor sues defendants that are amendable to these claims.

27

See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999); Yakama Indian

28

Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied,
2

1
2

528 U.S. 1116 (2000).
Accordingly, in response to the Ninth Circuit’s Referral Notice, the Court hereby

3

REVOKES Shoaga’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: June 4, 2015
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
3