Farshi v. Goldsmith

Filing 10

ORDER Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/10/2011. (USCA Case Number 11-56302. 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
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ESMAEIL FARSHI,

12

No. 11-56302
Plaintiff,

D.C. No. 11-cv-1473 MMA (CAB)

vs.
13
14
15
16

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

CHRISTINE K. GOLDSMITH, Judge,
individually and in her official capacity as
justice of the Superior Court of San Diego
County,
Defendant.

17
18

On July 19, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Esmaeil Farshi’s action against Defendant

19

Christine K. Goldsmith, a San Diego Superior Court Judge, because Judge Goldsmith enjoyed

20

absolute judicial immunity. [Doc. No. 3.] Plaintiff contends this dismissal was in error, and has

21

appealed the Court’s decision. On August 8, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred

22

this matter to the undersigned for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s in forma

23

pauperis status should continue for the appeal in this action or whether the appeal is frivolous or

24

taken in bad faith. [Doc. No. 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American

25

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is

26

appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous).]

27

In dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found Plaintiff’s allegations were based on

28

the conduct of a judge acting within the scope of her judicial authority, and such conduct entitled

-1-

11-cv-1473 MMA (CAB)

1

her to absolute immunity from suit. [Doc. No. 3]; see also Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075

2

(9th Cir.1986) (en banc). Based on these prior findings, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should

3

not continue for the appeal because the Court finds the appeal “lack[s] an arguable basis either in

4

law or fact.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s in forma

5

pauperis status is hereby REVOKED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

DATED: August 10, 2011
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

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

11-cv-1473 MMA (CAB)