Darrington v. Huffman et al

Filing 12

ORDER Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status And Denying 8 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIALLO B. DARRINGTON, Case No.: 16cv2839-JLS (PCL) Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. RICHARD D. HUFFMAN, et al., Defendants. 15 (ECF No. 8) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP 18 Mot.”). (ECF No. 8.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, (ECF No. 3), but ultimately dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims, (ECF 20 Nos. 5, 6). 21 Plaintiff has now submitted a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 8.) 22 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) generally provides that “[a] party who was 23 permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on 24 appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization . . . .” However, “[a]n appeal may 25 not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in 26 good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). An appeal is not 27 taken in good faith if the plaintiff asserts claims that are frivolous. See Hooker v. Am. 28 Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 16cv2839-JLS (PCL) 1 The present case stems from Plaintiff’s assertions that three associate justices of the 2 California Court of Appeals took certain actions during the pendency of Plaintiff’s 3 underlying appeal that “divested [t]h[e]m of jurisdiction” such that their “[a]ppellate 4 review thereafter was done ‘under color of law.’ ” (Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 4.) The Court 5 initially dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because his “claims against the three named 6 Defendants are for actions taken in their judicial capacities” and are therefore barred both 7 by the doctrine of judicial immunity and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 itself. (Order Granting Mot. to 8 Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Compl. Without Prejudice 4, ECF No. 3.) The 9 Court highlighted for Plaintiff the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and despite 10 “serious doubts that Plaintiff w[ould] be able to cure his Complaint through amendment” 11 nonetheless granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint in case he was merely confused 12 as to the appropriate legal theory under which to seek redress. (Id.) However, Plaintiff’s 13 Amended Complaint asserted the same underlying factual predicate for his claims, (see 14 generally Am. Compl.), and thus the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice 15 under (1) the doctrine of judicial immunity, (2) section 1983 itself, and (3) the Rooker- 16 Feldman doctrine, (Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice 2, ECF No. 5). 17 There is no question that any or all of these long-settled legal principles bars 18 Plaintiff’s case, and thus any appeal taken would be merely frivolous. Accordingly, the 19 Court REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2017 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 16cv2839-JLS (PCL)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?