Popescu v. City of San Diego, et al

Filing 124

ORDER: (1) denying in forma pauperis Status on Appeal; and (2) denying Fees for Transcript on Appeal. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's 119 motion for in forma pauperis status on appeal and for payment of transcript fees on appeal is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., on 1/6/2012. (USCA Case Number 12-55016. Order electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

VIRGIL POPESCU

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, PARKING
MANAGEMENT DIVISION and ROBERT
PAGAN #8073,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.06-CV-1577 WMc
ORDER: (1) DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL; AND
(2) DENYING FEES FOR TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL
[ECF No. 119].

16
I. INTRODUCTION
17
On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for waiver of costs on appeal. [ECF No. 119.] In
18
Plaintiff’s motion, he states he is indigent and asks the Court to waive the payment of costs and fees as
19
well as transcripts on appeal. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Court finds Plaintiff’s
20
appeal is not taken in good faith and does not present a substantial question.
21
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
22
A. In Forma Pauperis Status On Appeal
23
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if
24
the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The decision to allow an appeal to
25
proceed in forma pauperis remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court after the filing of an appeal..
26

In re Rains, 428 F.2d 893, 904 (9th Cir.2005).

27
///
28
///
1

06cv1577 WMc

1

B. Fees for Transcript On Appeal

2

As required by 28 U.S.C § 753(f), the judge must determine that an appeal by a person

3

“permitted to appeal in forma pauperis” is not frivolous, but presents a substantial question . Henderson

4

v. U.S., 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984).

5

III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER THEREON

6

In this case, the Court finds Plaintiff is not taking this appeal in good faith following the issuance

7

of the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law filed on December 7, 2011, in which the Court

8

found after considering live testimony, documentary evidence, law and argument presented in a three-

9

day bench trial before the Honorable William McCurine, Jr. that Plaintiff’s argument in support of his

10

discrimination claim was “absurd on its face, reprehensible, shameless and utterly foolish.” ECF No.

11

114 at 3:12-4:6. The Court also found one of Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his claim “so devoid of

12

credibility as to border on perjury.” Id. at 4:13-15. Accordingly, section 1915(a)(3) prevents the grant

13

of in forma pauperis status to Plaintiff on appeal.

14

As to Plaintiff’s request for the payment of transcript fees on appeal, the Court finds section 753

15

similarly does not permit public payment of transcript fees because Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and

16

fails to present a substantial question. Plaintiff attempted to establish at trial that Defendant, a parking

17

enforcement officer with the last name of “Pagan” discriminated against him by issuing parking tickets

18

to Plaintiff’s car, which had religious and political bumper stickers attached to it. Plaintiff’s proof in

19

support of this claim was the very existence of Defendant’s last name - Pagan, which as the Court noted

20

in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law meant “in Plaintiff’s mind that Defendant is an atheist

21

and hostile to Christians.” ECF No. 114 at 12-19. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the Court ruled

22

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving Officer Pagan violated his constitutional rights by issuing

23

one or more parking violations in a discriminatory manner based on Plaintiff’s political or religious

24

beliefs. ECF No. 114 at 7:4-7. This issue is not reasonably debatable. See Washburn v. Fagan, 2007

25

WL 2043854, at*2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (explaining there is a substantial question when the issue before the

26

appellate court is reasonably debatable.); see also Gonzales v. Riddle, 2008 WL 4723779, at *1 (E.D.

27

Cal. 2008) (stating that when considering whether an appeal presents a substantial question, the trial ///

28

///
2

06cv1577 WMc

1
2
3
4
5

court may take into account the statement of issues and related material).
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status on appeal and for
payment of transcript fees on appeal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 6, 2012

6
7

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

06cv1577 WMc