Elofson v. Bivens et al

Filing 166

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS (addressing 165 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/9/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GREG STEVEN ELOFSON, Case No. 15-cv-05761-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 9 10 STEPHANIE BIVENS, et al., [RE: ECF 165] Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiff Greg Steven Elofson brought this action to challenge Arizona state court orders 14 relating to the guardianship and conservatorship of his father. The case initially was assigned to a 15 magistrate judge, who granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Following 16 reassignment to the undersigned judge, the Court granted motions to dismiss brought by all 17 defendants and entered judgment. 18 Plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal. On August 7, 2017, the United States Court of 19 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a referral notice advising that “[t]his matter is referred to the 20 district court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should 21 continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Referral Notice, 22 ECF 165. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that 23 it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in good faith if it 24 presents at least one issue or claim that is non-frivolous. See Hooker v. Amer. Airlines, 302 F.3d 25 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 As discussed in the Court’s dismissal orders, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 27 over most of the claims asserted by Plaintiff and lacks personal jurisdiction over most of the 28 defendants named in the suit. The few claims not subject to dismissal on those bases are 1 improperly venued in this district or are subject to the defense of qualified immunity on the face of 2 the complaint. Because the Court’s determinations on those issues are not matters as to which 3 reasonable jurists could differ, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and thus not 4 taken in good faith. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall notify Plaintiff and the United States Court of Appeals for 7 the Ninth Circuit of this ruling as soon as is practicable. 8 9 10 This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of an application in the Court of Appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: August 9, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 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?