Juste v. Martinez et al
ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 11 Notice of Appeal, filed by Andre Juste. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/2/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dl, COURT STAFF).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C 16-07399 WHA
MARTINEZ et al.,
PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN
On May 4, an order dismissed plaintiff Andre Juste’s action on the grounds that he filed
in an inappropriate venue, and the allegations in his complaint were not comprehensible and did
not form the basis of a cognizable claim (Dkt. No. 9 at 2). On July 5, Juste filed a notice of
appeal in which he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 11).
Section 1915(a)(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “[a]n appeal may
not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good
faith.” Good faith is demonstrated when an appellant seeks “review of any issue not frivolous.”
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). An appeal is frivolous “where none of
the legal points [are] arguable on the merits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)
Here, Juste’s appeal is frivolous. He has not stated any viable legal theory on which to
appeal, and his complaint was filed in the wrong venue. Because the appeal is not taken in
good faith, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?