Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00892-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL REINHARDT,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. KENT HAMLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00892-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER FINDING APPEAL FRIVOLOUS 

AND REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS

(Doc. No. 40)

This action proceeded by way of a second amended complaint (“SAC”) filed by plaintiff, 

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, on September 19, 2019. (Doc No. 27.) 

On December 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s SAC be dismissed with prejudice because it failed to state a 

cognizable claim and was indeed frivolous. (Doc No. 30.) These findings and recommendations 

were adopted by the undersigned on March 16, 2020, and the case was dismissed with prejudice 

as frivolous. (Doc. No. 35.)

Plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal order and filed a notice of appeal on March 

23, 2020. (Doc. No. 37.) On March 25, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred the 

matter back to this court for a determination as to whether in forma pauperis status should 

continue on appeal or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Doc No. 40.)

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00892-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “The test for allowing an appeal in forma 

pauperis is easily met . . . [t]he good faith requirement is satisfied if the appellant seeks review of 

any issue that is ‘not frivolous.’” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550–51 (9th Cir. 1977) 

(quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 

302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that if at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, 

the appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, (1989). In other 

words, the term “frivolous”, as used in § 1915 and when applied to a complaint, “embraces not 

only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id.

As thoroughly detailed by the magistrate judge in the December 4, 2019 findings and 

recommendations and subsequently adopted by the undersigned, plaintiff’s SAC was frivolous; 

his claims asserted therein that judicial officers have conspired to deny him his constitutional 

rights are baseless and fanciful. (See Doc. Nos. 30, 35.) Plaintiff’s SAC named as defendants 

five former and current judges of the Fresno County Superior Court, thirteen former and current 

justices of the California Court of Appeal, and three former and current justices of the California 

Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 27 at 2–5.) In SAC plaintiff alleged that the named defendants were 

“acting as an organized criminal enterprise, conspiring to deprive [him] . . . of his 14th 

Amendment . . . right to habeas corpus . . ..” (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff also challenged the “legality of 

habeas corpus procedure used by judges of the California courts that are summaril[y] denying 

each habeas corpus application [he] files.” (Id. at 2.) 

In sum, there is no basis in fact or in law for plaintiff’s appeal. Thus, the court concludes 

that his appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

status is revoked. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff, as 

well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00892-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 1:19-cv-00892-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 3