Hollins v. Munks et al

Filing 15

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3.24.14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 MICHAEL HOLLINS, Plaintiff, 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 13-5574 PJH (PR) vs. ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS GREG MUNKS, et. al., Defendants. / 12 This civil rights case filed pro se by a detainee at Maguire Correctional Facility was 13 dismissed and closed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed an appeal with the Ninth 14 Circuit and the case has been referred back to this court for the limited purpose of 15 determining whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue or whether the 16 appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. 17 An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a 18 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a 20 district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district 21 court.” The party must attach an affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party's inability to pay 22 or give security for fees and costs,” (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3) “states 23 the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, 24 even if a party provides proof of indigence, “an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis 25 if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 26 An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.” 27 Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is “frivolous” if 28 it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1 2 1990). In the amended complaint, plaintiff stated that he was not provided sufficient law 3 library access to file cases regarding circumvention of the jail grievance system, excessive 4 force and denial of freedom of religion. Plaintiff has filed 14 cases in this court in the last 5 few months including cases regarding all of these issues, thus plaintiff is unable to 6 demonstrate an injury.1 Plaintiff also stated the law library has a great deal of state law 7 books, but not enough federal law books. As plaintiff made only conclusory allegations 8 about the lack of federal law books and as he had filed many cases on a wide range of 9 federal issues this case was dismissed. As it is clear that plaintiff’s claims have no arguable basis in fact or law, this appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith and plaintiff’s in 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 forma pauperis status is REVOKED. The Clerk shall forward this Order to the Ninth Circuit 12 in case No. 14-15532. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2014. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 15 16 G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Hollins5574.ifp-rvk.wpd 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff’s case regarding the circumvention of the appeal system was dismissed for failure to state a claim (13-5085), the case regarding excessive force has been dismissed with leave to amend a second time (13-5083) and service was ordered on defendants for the case regarding freedom of religion (13-5035). 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?