Scott v. Yellen et al
Filing
14
ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/28/2021. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2021)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)
Case 4:21-cv-01519-PJH Document 14 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DONNIE SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 21-cv-01519-PJH
ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
v.
JANET YELLEN, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against a
14
governmental entity that was dismissed at screening. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the
15
Ninth Circuit, which re-engaged this court for the limited purpose of determining whether
16
plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue, or whether the appeal is frivolous or
17
taken in bad faith.
18
An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a
19
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a district-
21
court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
22
court.” The party must attach an affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party’s inability to
23
pay or give security for fees and costs,” (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3)
24
“states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
25
But even if a party provides proof of indigence, “an appeal may not be taken in forma
26
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. §
27
1915(a)(3). An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-
28
frivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is
Case 4:21-cv-01519-PJH Document 14 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2
1
“frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d
2
614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).
3
In this action, plaintiff seeks court intervention in obtaining his economic impact
payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The
5
“CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) and Scholl v. Mnuchin, No. 20-
6
cv-5309 PJH, –––F.3d ––– 2020 WL 6065059 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020). Plaintiff was
7
advised that he was not entitled to relief to the extent he sought the court to compel the
8
IRS to provide his EIP. The court in Scholl found that the EIP could not be denied only
9
because an individual was incarcerated. However, the court was clear that it took no
10
position on whether individual incarcerated plaintiffs were owed the EIP, which is the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
relief sought in this case. That responsibility fell to the IRS to make an individual
12
determination. More importantly, funds cannot now be distributed pursuant to the
13
CARES Act. The CARES Act imposed a deadline of December 31, 2020, for EIPs to be
14
made or allowed. That deadline has passed, and no more funds may be issued.
15
Plaintiff’s action has no arguable basis in fact or law; therefore, plaintiff’s in forma
16
pauperis status is REVOKED. The clerk is requested to forward this order to the Ninth
17
Circuit in case No. 21-15750.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2021
20
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?