Robinson et al v. AlvaradoSmith, APC, et al

Filing 18

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS (addressing 16 Referral Notice issued by Court of Appeals). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/25/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SHEILA ROBINSON, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01630-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

9
10

ALVARADOSMITH, APC,, et al.,

[RE: ECF 16]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiffs’ action initially was assigned to a magistrate judge, who granted Plaintiffs leave

14

to proceed in forma pauperis but issued a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed

15

with prejudice. On June 1, 2015, this Court issued an order adopting the magistrate judge’s report

16

and recommendation and dismissing the action with prejudice. The Court entered judgment for

17

Defendants on the same date.

18

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in

19

forma pauperis. On June 11, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued

20

a referral notice advising that “[t]his matter is referred to the district court for the limited purpose

21

of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the

22

appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Referral Notice, ECF 16. “An appeal may not be taken

23

in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in good faith if it presents at least one issue or claim that is non-

25

frivolous. See Hooker v. Amer. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).

26

As discussed in the Court’s dismissal order, Plaintiffs have failed to state a federal claim

27

and have failed to demonstrate any possibility of doing so if given leave to amend their pleading.

28

Diversity jurisdiction clearly does not lie. Because those determinations are not matters as to

1

which reasonable jurists could differ, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and

2

thus not taken in good faith.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED pursuant to 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall notify Plaintiffs and the United States Court of Appeals for

5

the Ninth Circuit of this ruling as soon as is practicable.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: June 25, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2