Gribovszki v. The State of California et al

Filing 23

ORDER Certifying Appeal Not Taken in Good Faith re 22 USCA Order. Signed by Judge James Ware on April 28, 2011. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 11-00070 JW Thomas Gribovszki, 11 ORDER CERTIFYING THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH Plaintiff, v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 The State of California, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 Presently before the Court is the Ninth Circuit’s Referral Notice. (See Docket Item No. 22.) 16 In its Notice, the Ninth Circuit requests a determination as to whether Petitioner’s in forma pauperis 17 status should continue for the pendency of his appeal. (Id.) 18 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part: 19 An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. 20 On March 16, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment 22 due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the California state courts under the Rooker23 Feldman doctrine. (hereafter, “March 16 Order,” Docket Item No. 13.) 24 On April 13 and April 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed two Motions for Reconsideration of the 25 Court’s March 16 Order and a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (See Docket Item Nos. 17, 18, 26 19.) On April 20, 2011, the Court, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, liberally construed the 27 Motions as Motions for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration and denied the Motions on the 28 1 grounds that Plaintiff failed to assert any basis as to why Rooker-Feldman would be inapplicable. 2 (See Docket Item No. 21.) 3 Upon review, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s appeal was undertaken in good faith. 4 Specifically, the Court found, first in its March 16 Order and again on reconsideration, that 5 Plaintiff’s suit is clearly barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Plaintiff fails to put forth any 6 grounds to the contrary. Thus, Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous. 7 8 Accordingly, the Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and, thus, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should not continue for the pendency of his appeal. 9 Dated: April 28, 2011 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Thomas Gribovszki c/o Mr. Joerg Kreisel Melanieweg 25 Aachen, Germany 3 4 5 Dated: April 28, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 6 By: 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

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?