Manalisay v. Hall et al

Filing 46

ORDER re: revocation of in forma pauperis status. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/19/2023. (vclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2023)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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MANALISAY,

Case No. 22-cv-04701-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

v.
BOYDINE HALL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 43

Defendants.

The Court finds that revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate in this case
because Manalisay’s appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American
Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).
As explained in the Court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice, Manalisay’s
allegations—regarding constitutional violations by administrative actors associated with his child
support proceedings—are nearly impenetrable. See Dkt. No. 38. He seems not to recognize the
authority of administrative law judges, and he characterizes state court orders regarding his child
support obligations as mere “contracts” to which he is not bound for not having assented to them.
On that basis, he challenges the actions of Department of Child Support Services agents, who
allegedly levied his bank accounts, investment retirement accounts, and COVID-19 stimulus
checks pursuant to those court orders, as unlawful seizures under the Fourth Amendment. He
also purports to bring a claim for bank fraud against his ex-wife and the mother of his child,
Karen Santana, under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, a criminal statute that does not create a private right of
action.
The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2023
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2