Barnes v. Schneider et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 5/28/2014 DENYING 11 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7

TURELL L. BARNES SR.,

Case No: C 13-5333 SBA

8

Plaintiff,
9

vs.
10

ORDER DENYING
APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

EUGENE SCHNEIDER, et.al.,
Docket 11

11

Defendants.
12
13

On November 18, 2013, Turell L. Barnes, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

14

commenced the instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Cecilia P.

15

Castellanos (“Judge Castellanos”), Eugene Schneider (“Schneider”), and the State of

16

California (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl., Dkt. 1. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the

17

alleged taking of his home without due process or just compensation. See id. On April 21,

18

2014, the Court issued an Order dismissing this action without leave to amend. Dkt. 7.

19

Specifically, the Court found that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to disrupt or undo a prior

20

state-court judgment, his action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. As for the

21

merits, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Castellanos fail as a matter of

22

law because judges are absolutely immune for judicial acts. Id. Additionally, the Court

23

found that the claims alleged against Schneider fail as a matter of law because Schneider

24

was acting in a private capacity and not under color of state law. Id. Finally, the Court

25

found that Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California fails as a matter of law because

26

they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id.

27
28

On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Dkt. 11. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states: “An appeal may not be taken in forma

1

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good

2

faith requirement is satisfied if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is “not

3

frivolous.” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge v.

4

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). An action is “frivolous” for purposes of section

5

1915 if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325,

6

327 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, because the

7

claims alleged in the complaint fail as a matter of law, Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s

8

April 21, 2014 Order is frivolous. Accordingly, the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s

9

appeal is not taken in good faith within the meaning of § 1915(a)(3). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

10

request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket

11

11.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/28/2014
_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-