Garcia v. Honeywell International Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER re: Plaintiff's in forma pauperis Status. In light of the foregoing the Court finds that Mr. Garcia's appeal in this action is neither non-frivolous nor taken in good faith. In accordance with the Ninth Circuit's 28 referral no tice, the Clerk of the Court shall immediately notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties of this order. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/23/2014. (USCA Case Number 14-55937. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

MIGUEL GARCIA,

13

Case No. 13-cv-2399-BAS(WVG)
Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
[ECF No. 28]

v.

16
17

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC.,

18

Defendant.

19
20
21

On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff Miguel Garcia, who is proceeding pro se,

22

commenced this action arising out of his prior employment with and subsequent

23

termination by Defendant Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”). On June 6,

24

2014, the Court dismissed Mr. Garcia’s claims with prejudice on the basis that they

25

were all barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (ECF No. 23.) Thereafter, Mr. Garcia

26

filed a timely notice of appeal of “the final judgment and order dismissing with

27

prejudice its claims to the defendant.” (Pl.’s Notice of Appeal 1:19–23.)

28

//
-1-

13cv2399

1

On March 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit referred this matter to this Court for the

2

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

3

Mr. Garcia’s appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (ECF No.

4

28.) For the following reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Garcia’s appeal is frivolous

5

and not taken in good faith.

6
7

I.

ANALYSIS

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).

15

Here, the Court found that Mr. Garcia’s claims in this action were barred by the

16

doctrine of res judicata because they arose from the same transactional nucleus of

17

facts—the circumstances surrounding his termination from Honeywell in June

18

2009—as in an action filed earlier in the District of Arizona (“Arizona Action”). The

19

court in the Arizona Action also dismissed Mr. Garcia’s claims with prejudice.

20

Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s appeal has no arguable basis in fact or law, and is

21

therefore, frivolous. See O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.

22

Moreover, the record also demonstrates that Mr. Garcia has brought his claims

23

arising from is termination before multiple tribunals: (1) the Mexican Labor Board; (2)

24

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; (3) the District Court for the District

25

of Arizona; (4) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; and (5) this district.1 He now

26

attempts to bring this action before the Ninth Circuit yet again while his appeal in the

27
1

28

It is worth noting that the court in the Arizona Action also found Mr. Garcia’s appeal in that
case to be frivolous, but on different grounds. See Garcia v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. CV 12-840PHX-FJM (D. Ariz.).
-2-

13cv2399

1

Arizona Action remains pending.2 See Garcia v. Honeywell Int’l, No. 12-17353 (9th

2

Cir.). This vexatious conduct, among other reasons, also leads this Court to conclude

3

that Mr. Garcia’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

4
5

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

6

In light of the foregoing the Court finds that Mr. Garcia’s appeal in this action

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

(See ECF No. 28.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

DATED: June 23, 2014

14

Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Mr. Garcia paid the full required filing fee in his appeal arising from the Arizona Action. .
See Garcia v. Honeywell Int’l, No. 12-17353 (9th Cir.).
-3-

13cv2399