Huff v. United States of America

Filing 49

ORDER that this Court certifies its determination pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from its August 23, 2013 Order would be frivolous and therefore not taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court shall send this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/3/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USCA - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

Keith Hoff,
Case No.: 2-12-cv-00235-JAD-PAL

10

Plaintiff

11
12

Order Certifying Lack of Good
Faith for in Forma Pauperis Status
on Appeal

vs.
United States,

13

Defendant

14
15

The Ninth Circuit referred this matter to the District Judge to determine whether in forma

16

pauperis status should continue on appeal.1 Doc. 48. On careful review, this Court certifies that any

17

in forma pauperis appeal from its order would be frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

18

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

19

438, 445 (1962).

20

This is a civil rights action by Plaintiff Keith Hoff, who alleges that FBI agents, his former

21

attorney Patrick Marshall, “several” state and federal judges, and a handful of other persons and

22

entities violated his Constitutional rights “over a period of 20 years.” Doc. 1 at 4. The allegations

23

contained in the Motions to Amend are nearly incomprehensible. Plaintiff believes that his

24

constitutional rights were violated by the United States, his former attorney, Patrick Marshall, and

25

retired United States Bankruptcy Judge Grube. Hoff contends that attorney Marshall paid for a

26
27
28

1

The Court is—and at all times during the underlying matter was—mindful that federal courts
must “liberally construe the ‘inartful pleadings’ of pro se litigants,” such as the plaintiff in the instant
case. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)).
1

1

subpoena in a case pending in the state of California, and “this caused a fraudulent judgment at trial

2

in bankruptcy court.” See Doc. 14 at 1. Additionally, Hoff was involved in another state court case,

3

which was removed to federal court, and “this fraudulent trial used misrepresentation of facts and

4

evidence, they concealed and [sic] evidence that a court ex parte meeting occurred between the

5

judge and Mr. Marshall.” Id. at 2. He further asserts he was unlawfully imprisoned, which caused

6

him physical and psychological damage, and that Marshall embezzled money from him and colluded

7

with Judge Grube. Hoff’s request for relief includes a request that this court order “the subpoena of

8

confirmation of guarantee filed at San Benito County Recorder’s Office” in 1991 or 1992, which

9

will show that he is owed $1,729,000.00 plus interest. This court found that Hoff’s primarily

10

incomprehensible pleadings and motions failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

11

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and, accordingly, dismissed this action with

12

prejudice. Doc. 44.

13

This is Hoff’s third lawsuit involving these allegations. See Hoff v. Marshall, C 94-20693

14

JW, 1994 WL 618479 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 1994); Hoff v. I.R.S., 2:06-CV-0748-RCJ-PAL, 2007 WL

15

295611 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2007); Hoff v. I.R.S., 2:06-cv-0748-RCJ-PAL, 2007 WL 2410358 (D. Nev.

16

Aug. 20, 2007). His case before Judge James Ware in the Northern District of California involved a

17

malpractice claim against attorney Marshall, whose alleged “collusion” and other misdeeds are at

18

the heart of his theories in this case. Compare Hoff,1994 WL 618479, at *1, with Doc. 24. The case

19

before Judge Robert Jones in the District of Nevada alleged a fraudulent conspiracy involving

20

attorney Marshall, Judge Grube, and others, and sought the return of taxes allegedly overpaid to the

21

Internal Revenue Service. Compare Hoff, 2007 WL 2410358, at *1, with Doc. 24 and Doc. 27

22

(Motion for the Return of Overpaid Taxes and Unlawful Concealment of Fraud by USA and IRS).

23

Thus, this court’s August 23, 2013, dismissal of the instant action by the undersigned marked the

24

third Hoff action based on some version of the same, primarily incoherent allegations dismissed by a

25

district court in this Circuit. See id.; Doc. 44.

26

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is

27

not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Baseless claims include those “describing

28

fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”
2

1

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989)). And they include lawsuits that “merely repea[t] . . .

2

previously litigated claims.” Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,

3

1021 (5th Cir.1988); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 30, 112 (1992)) (internal quotation marks

4

omitted). This legal standard describes the instant case and this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

5

Accordingly, the court determines that Hoff’s appeal is frivolous and that in forma pauperis status

6

should be revoked.2

7

Good cause appearing, this Court hereby CERTIFIES its determination pursuant to 28

8

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any that any appeal from its August 23, 2013 Order would be frivolous and

9

therefore not taken “in good faith.”

10
11
12

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL SEND this order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED October 3, 2013.

13
14

_________________________________
_______________________
_
_
_ _
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
N
T
UNITED STATES DISTRIC JUDGE

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

2

The Court also notes that whether Hoff himself truly desires to continue proceeding in forma
pauperis is unclear from his filings. He filed applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
April 18, 2012 and June 4, 2013. Docs. 4, 23. But less than one week later on June 10, 2013, Hoff
complained that the Court’s sending of the in forma pauperis application was wrongful and cause for
disqualification. Doc. 30. He wrote:
THE COURT MAILED PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION FOR FORMA
PAUPEROUS [sic] COMPLAINT. THIS IS A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO
UNDERMINE AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT ON CASE 2:12-CV-00235-MMD-PAL.
THIS IS NOT LAWFUL. IT IS A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO AVOID ADMITTING
IT DEFAULTED ON A VERIFIED COMPLAINT. THIS IS NOT LAWFUL. IT IS
FRAUD BY THE COURT, A CAUSE TO DISQUALIFY THE JUDGE IN THE
CASE. NO JUDGE HAS THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE A VERIFIED
AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Id. at 1 (emphasis in original).
3