Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KRISHNA REDDY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

(Re: Docket No. 271)

Plaintiff Krishna Reddy requests leave to appeal nearly every order entered in this case in 

forma pauperis.

1

 Because the court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith, the motion is 

DENIED. 

I.

In late 2011, Reddy sued Defendants Nuance Communications, Inc., et al. and asserted ten 

claims: (1) employment discrimination, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) 

breach of contract, (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) promissory 

estoppel, (6) fraud, deceit, and civil conspiracy, (7) intentional and negligent interference with 

contract and prospective economic advantage, (8) violation of California Labor Code sections 1050 

and 1052, (9) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (10) unconstitutional 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 271, 272.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 276 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

offshoring of confidential medical information of the citizens of the United States.2 After multiple 

rounds of motions to dismiss, summary judgment and appeal to the Ninth Circuit, only claims one, 

two and five, and claim nine’s allegations of negligent infliction of emotional distress remain, and 

Nuance is the sole defendant.3Trial was set for September 8, 2015.4

Fewer than two weeks before the start of trial, Reddy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 144 affidavit of 

bias requesting the recusal of the undersigned, as well as a notice of intent to call both the 

undersigned and counsel for Nuance as witnesses at trial.5 When the court denied both requests 

and warned Reddy that trial would proceed as scheduled,6 Reddy requested that the trial be taken 

off calendar due to the bias of the undersigned and that the undersigned recuse himself.7 When the 

court denied this motion and repeated its warning that failure to try the case as scheduled would 

result in sanctions,8 Reddy petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus and renewed her 

request to take the trial off calendar.9 Given Reddy’s demonstrated intent to avoid proceeding with 

trial as scheduled, the court then dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute10 and 

 

2

See Docket No. 1.

3

See Docket No. 259 at 1-4, 10.

4

See Docket No. 248 at 1.

5

See Docket Nos. 261, 262.

6

See Docket No. 263 at 4. 

7

See Docket No. 264.

8

See Docket No. 266 at 1.

9

See Docket No. 267.

10 See Docket No. 268 at 6.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 276 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

entered judgment.11 Reddy then moved to alter judgment,12 appealed virtually every substantive 

order issued in this case to the Ninth Circuit13 and moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.14

II.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).15

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an “appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Courts in this district have determined 

that “not taken in good faith” means “frivolous.”16 If the appeal as a whole is frivolous, IFP status 

should not be granted.

17

III.

Applying the standard as set forth above, Reddy’s motion is denied as follows.

First, the Ninth Circuit declared that Reddy’s notice of appeal is ineffective due to her 

pending motion to alter judgment.18 Once this court has ruled on the pending motion, Reddy must 

 

11 See Docket No. 269.

12 See Docket No. 270.

13 See Docket No. 272.

14 See Docket No. 271.

15 See Docket Nos. 17, 121.

16 See Morris v. Lewis, Case No. 4:10-cv-5640-CRB-PR, 2012 WL 1549535, at *3

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (quoting Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958)) (finding an 

appeal to be frivolous where it had no valid grounds on which it was based and equating 

“frivolous” to mean not “taken in good faith”).

17 See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) requires IFP status to be authorized for an appeal as a whole and not on a 

piecemeal basis).

18 See Krishna Reddy v. Nuance Communications, Inc., et al, Case No. 15-16994 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 

2015).

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 276 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

file an amended notice of appeal.19 The motion for leave to appeal in forma thus is moot, pending 

resolution of the motion to alter judgment.

Second, Reddy’s appeal is frivolous. Reddy has shown no desire to prosecute this case. 

After the Ninth Circuit rejected Reddy’s earlier appeal,20 she failed to take action for months until 

the court ordered her to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.21 

She then attempted to delay trial four times through assorted tactics,

22 despite being on notice that 

failure to prosecute would result in sanctions.23 Further showing Reddy’s lack of good faith in 

pursuing appeal, her current appeal challenges an order that the Ninth Circuit previously 

affirmed.24 Additionally, her motion to alter judgment repeats the same worn attacks that the 

undersigned is biased against her, related to defense counsel and disqualified under Section 14425

that the court already rejected.26 In short, Reddy has not presented any compelling arguments that 

suggest that she is entitled to relief of any kind, and based on the record in this case, the court sees 

no reason that she can do so on appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

19 See id.

20 See Docket No. 236.

21 See Docket No. 237.

22 See Docket Nos. 261, 262, 264, 267.

23 See Docket No. 263 at 4; Docket No. 266 at 1.

24 See Docket No. 272 at ¶ 17 (appealing Docket No. 228, order denying motion for appointment of 

counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis); Docket No. 236 (order of the Ninth Circuit affirming

Docket No. 228).

25 See Docket No. 270 at 5-6.

26 See Docket Nos. 263, 266, 268.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 276 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 4