Qassimy Ar v. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) San Diego Field Office et al

Filing 10

ORDER revoking Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.. Signed by District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 1/7/2025. (cc: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AKHTAR QASSIMYAR, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (FBI); STACEY
MOY; DOES 1 THROUGH 500,

15
16

Case No.: 3:24-cv-02109-RBM-DDL
ORDER REVOKING
PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS
[Doc. 8]

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Presently before the Court is the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

23

Referral Notice. (Doc. 8.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred the matter to

24

this Court to determine whether Plaintiff-Appellant Akhtar Qassimyar (“Plaintiff”) should

25

be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, or whether the appeal is

26

frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Id. at 1.)

27

On November 27, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP but

28

dismissed his Complaint (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) as frivolous and for failure to
1
3:24-cv-02109-RBM-DDL

1

state a claim without leave to amend. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff appealed the Court’s dismissal

2

order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 5.) Because Plaintiff lacks any good-

3

faith basis for his appeal of the dismissal order, he cannot maintain his IFP status, and it is

4

therefore REVOKED.

5

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that:

6

[a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court
action, . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further
authorization, unless: (A) the district court--before or after the notice of appeal
is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the
party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in
writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or (B) a statute provides
otherwise.

7
8
9
10
11
12

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma

13

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith”). An appeal

14

is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.” See

15

Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); Ellis v. United States, 356

16

U.S. 674 (1958) (“In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant’s good

17

faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.”). A

18

complaint is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920

19

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). Parties must present at least one non-frivolous issue or claim

20

to justify that critical “good faith” finding. See id.

21

Based on its ruling dismissing the Complaint for failing to state a claim, the Court

22

concludes that the appeal lacks any arguable basis in law or fact and is frivolous. The

23

appeal is therefore not taken in “good faith.” Courts “often revoke IFP status when a

24

plaintiff’s claim faces an obstacle that simply cannot be overcome.” Allen v. Diaz, No. 20-

25

CV-1389 JLS (MDD), 2023 WL 6593834, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2023). As this Court

26

previously explained, the Complaint is replete with fanciful ideations that are fantastical,

27

delusional, irrational, and incredible concerning individuals and entities attempting to

28

assassinate Plaintiff and torturing him by depriving him of sleep through radar and remote
2
3:24-cv-02109-RBM-DDL

1

devices. (See Doc. 3 at 6–8.) “No matter how sincerely believed by Plaintiff, these

2

allegations are simply too fantastic to warrant the expenditure of further judicial and private

3

resources.” Meyer v. World Bank, No. 3:19-cv-00017-GPC (JLB), 2019 WL 2009873, at

4

*3 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) (citation omitted); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours

5

& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 337 (1948) (Courts have the “power to protect the public from having

6

to pay heavy costs incident to the inclusion of ‘wholly unnecessary’ matters in an in forma

7

pauperis appeal.”).

8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

9

status is REVOKED for purposes of the appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED

10

to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal

11

is not taken in good faith.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 7, 2025
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:24-cv-02109-RBM-DDL