Frost v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 150

COURTS CERTIFICATION THAT APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on February 1, 2021. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VINTON P. FROST,

Case No. 17-cv-01240-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

COURT’S CERTIFICATION THAT
APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD
FAITH

Defendant.

12
13

Under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[a] party who was permitted

14

to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma

15

pauperis without further authorization, unless . . . the district court – before or after the notice of

16

appeal is filed – certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not

17

otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the

18

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

19

the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The Ninth Circuit has

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous.

24

Plaintiff’s appeal appears to be based on his assertion that the FBI did not conduct an

25

adequate search for documents in response to his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request.

26

In particular, he argues that a word on one of the pages that was produced by the FBI was a

27

“codeword” that provided an “obvious and significant lead for FOIA-responsive documents” and

28

that this lead should have been pursued by the FBI. See Dkt. No. 109 at pp. 1-2. A FOIA search

1

is adequate so long as the agency has “conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all

2

relevant documents[,]” which can be demonstrated by submitting “in good faith” “reasonably

3

detailed, non-conclusory affidavits depicting adequate searches for the documents requested.”

4

Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571, 574 (9th Cir. 1985). Further, it is well-established that

5

“hypothetical assertions [that documents are likely to exist] are insufficient to raise a material

6

question of fact with respect to the adequacy of the agency’s search.” Meeropol v. Meese, 790

7

F.2d 942, 952–53 (D.C.Cir.1986).

8
9

Here, the Court found on summary judgment that the FBI conducted a search reasonably
calculated to uncover all relevant documents based on affidavits that were submitted in good faith.
Plaintiff’s theory that a word in one of the documents produced by the agency is a codeword that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

provides clues as to the existence of additional responsive documents is entirely speculative.

12

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

13
14

Dated: February 1, 2021

15
16
17

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2