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)

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