Martin v. State Bar of California et al

Filing 48

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/17/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CRAIG K. MARTIN, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, Assistant Chief Trial Counsel; ALLEN BLUMENTHAL, Supervising Trial Counsel; WONDER J. LIANG, Assigned Deputy Trial Counsel; JOHN W. MATNEY, Investigator; SUSAN CHAN, Deputy Trial Counsel; RUSSELL G. WEINER, Interim Chief Trial Counsel; DONALD STEEDMAN, Supervising Trial Counsel; ROBERT A. ENDRIES, Deputy Trial Counsel; SHERRIE B. MCLETCHIE; MIKE A. NISPEROS, JR.; and DOES 1-50, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 12-16132 Defendants. 16 17 No. C 11-3601 CW ________________________________/ On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff Craig K. Martin filed a Notice of 18 Appeal with the Ninth Circuit, challenging this Court’s April 11, 19 2012 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Granting 20 Mattaniah Eytan’s Motion to Dismiss, and Quashing Service upon 21 Eytan. Docket No. 44. The Ninth Circuit has referred the matter 22 to this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether 23 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue for the 24 appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. 25 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides, “An appeal may not be 26 taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing 27 that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 See also Ellis v. U. S., 356 1 U.S. 674, 674 (1958) (“In the absence of some evident improper 2 motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the 3 presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.”). 4 In the April 11, 2012 order, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s claims against the State Bar and its current and 6 former employees in their official capacities were barred by the 7 Eleventh Amendment and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 8 also quashed service upon Mattaniah Eytan, and dismissed 9 Plaintiff’s complaint to the extent he sought to prosecute it 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 against Mr. Eytan, who was not mentioned in the complaint and 11 whose identity Plaintiff knew prior to instituting this action. 12 For the reasons set forth in the April 11, 2012 order, the The Court 13 Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal lacks any arguable basis. 14 Therefore, the Court certifies the appeal as frivolous and taken 15 in bad faith. 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5), 17 Plaintiff may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 18 in the Court of Appeals within thirty days after service of notice 19 of this Order. 20 affidavit filed in the district court and the district court's 21 statement of reasons for its action.” 22 Procedure 24(a)(5). 23 Any such motion “must include a copy of the Federal Rule of Appellate IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 5/17/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 26 27 28 cc: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2

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?