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)

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