Dantzler v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 69 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EUGENE F. DANTZLER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-03119-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

Docket No. 69

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant.
12
13

Plaintiff Eugene F. Dantzler has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis. Mr.

14

Dantzler appears to meet the financial requirements for in forma pauperis status. Nevertheless,

15

“[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if . . . it is not taken in good faith,” 28 U.S.C. §

16

1915(a)(3), and courts have held that a frivolous appeal is not taken in good faith. See, e.g.,

17

Morris v. Lewis, No. C 10-5640 CRB (PR), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60172, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

18

30, 2012); cf. Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that, “[i]f at

19

least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

20

must be granted for the case as a whole”). The Court finds that Mr. Dantzler‟s appeal is frivolous

21

for the reasons stated in its summary judgment order. Cf. In re Haw. Corp., 796 F.2d 1139, 1144

22

(9th Cir. 1986) (in addressing frivolous appeals in the context of assessing costs and attorney‟s

23

fees, stating that “[a]n appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or where the arguments are

24

„wholly without merit‟”). Accordingly, Mr. Dantzler‟s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

25

appeal is hereby DENIED. This ruling does not preclude Mr. Dantzler from asking the Ninth

26

Circuit directly for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) (providing

27

that “[a] party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals

28

within 30 days after service of the notice prescribed in Rule 24(a)(4) [i.e., notice to the court of

1
2
3
4

appeals of the district court denial]”).
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to immediately provide a copy of this order to the
Ninth Circuit.
This order disposes of Docket No. 69.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: February 9, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2