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)

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)