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)
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?