Jackson v. Woodford, et al

Filing 198

ORDER Certifying Appeal as Frivolous. In accordance with the Ninth Circuit's referral notice, the Clerk of the Court shall immediately notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties of this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/25/2015.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service; CC: Appeals Clerk)(sjt). (Modified on 9/25/2015: USCA Case Number 15-56441. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals via regenerated NEF.) (akr).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 5-cv-513 L (NLS)
ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL
AS FRIVOLOUS

v.
J.P. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On March 14, 2005, Plaintiff Arthur Dwayne Jackson, a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that,
inter alia, he had been deprived of his First Amendment right of meaningful access
to the courts. On March 28, 2008, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. (Order, ECF No. 144.) On April 13, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remand the case. (Mandate, ECF No. 162.)
The only issue before this Court on remand was Plaintiff’s alleged denial of
meaningful access to the court under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals
found that Plaintiff “presented evidence that defendants denied him any access to
one box of legal materials, thereby preventing him from challenging his conviction

27

and sentence in state court. The district court’s order granting summary judgment

28

did not address this claimed injury.” (Id.) (emphasis in original.)
–1–

5CV513

1

On remand, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

2

The Court found, for two separate reasons, that Plaintiff “did not raise a genuine

3

issue of material fact that Defendants’ actions caused his injury, i.e., failure to prevail

4

on appeal of his habeas petition.” (July 7, 2009 Order 2, ECF No. 164.) First,

5

Plaintiff argued that he needed access to his legal materials to prepare a transcript of

6

evidence pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in

7

support of his contention that the District Court’s finding were contrary to evidence.

8

However, he was precluded from appealing the denial of his habeas petition because

9

both the District Court and the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and not because Defendants prevented him from

11

preparing a transcript of the evidence. This Court noted that this alone was grounds

12

to grant Defendants’ motion because Plaintiff would have to obtain a reversal of the

13

denial of the certificate of appealability to proceed with his appeal. Second, Plaintiff

14

did not dispute that a complete record was forwarded to the Court of Appeals and

15

Plaintiff did not contend that the record was deficient or inaccurate. So, based on

16

undisputed evidence, this Court found that Plaintiff’s habeas appeal failed for

17

reasons unrelated to Defendants’ actions relative to his legal materials. Instead the

18

Court granted summary judgment to Defendants because Plaintiff failed to raise a

19

genuine issue of material fact regarding the causation element of his claim.

20

Judgment was entered on July 8, 2009 (ECF No. 165), and the Plaintiff appealed this

21

decision as well. (NOA, ECF No. 167.)

22
23

On November 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the appeal for the following
reason:

26

The only issue open on remand was whether Jackson was unable to
bring a claim in state court because defendants allegedly denied him
access to some of his legal materials. Jackson has not raised this issue
on appeal, and thus it is waived.

27

(Mandate, ECF No. 177 (citation omitted).) On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a

28

Rule 60 motion seeking relief from this Court’s July 7, 2009 order granting summary

24
25

–2–

5CV513

1

judgment for Defendants. (Rule 60 Mot. 1, ECF No. 180.)

2

On September 2, 2015, this Court issued an order denying the Rule 60 motion.

3

(Order Denying Rule 60 Mot. ECF No. 193.) In that order, the Court explained that

4

the Rule 60 motion was improper because it sought relief outside the Court’s July 7,

5

2009 ruling which the motion purported to challenge. Specifically that the Court

6

had no power to correct his alleged injury because it occurred during his litigation

7

of a petition for writ of mandate that he filed in March of 2013. (Id. 5.) Plaintiff’s

8

2013 action seeking to correct his sentence occurred almost two years after the

9

Court’s final judgment in this case. (Id.)

10

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. (NOA, ECF

11

No. 194.) On September 23, 2015, the Ninth Circuit referred this matter to this Court

12

for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should

13

continue for Plaintiff’s appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad

14

faith. (Referral Notice, ECF No. 197.) For the following reasons, the Court finds

15

that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith.

16
17

I.

ANALYSIS

18

An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-

19

frivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); see

20

also Huffman v. Boersen, 406 U.S. 337, 339 (1972) (“In the federal system, ‘good

21

faith’ has ‘been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a non-frivolous

22

question for review.’”) (quoting Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (Douglas, J.,

23

concurring)). In turn, an issue is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.”

24
25
26
27
28

O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).
This Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, which
was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, was based on Plaintiffs’ failure to establish a
dispute of material fact with respect to the causation element in his claim. The order
expressly stated that it was based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish a dispute of
material fact regarding causation, and did not consider whether Plaintiff was
–3–

5CV513

1

successful in overcoming Defendants’ motion with respect to the injury element.

2

(July 7, 2009 Order, 3-4.) In other words, this Court’s previous decision was based

3

on reasons “unrelated to Defendants’ actions relative to his legal materials.” (Id. 3.)

4

Plaintiff fails to point to any basis for Rule 60 relief that challenges this Court’s

5

previous order. Because Plaintiff has based his Rule 60 motion on a purported injury

6

that occurred well after the order that this motion challenges, and such motion is

7
8
9

outside the scope of the instant § 1983 matter before this Court, the appeal has no
arguable basis in fact or law. Therefore the Court finds that the pending appeal is
frivolous.

10

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

11

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal in this action is
12

neither non-frivolous nor taken in good faith. See Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092. In
13

accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s referral notice, the Clerk of the Court shall
14

immediately notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties of this order.
15

(See ECF No. 197.)
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 25, 2015

18

M. James Lorenz
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–

5CV513