Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02887/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02887-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1 

Case No. 5:14-cv-02887-PSG

ORDER REVOKING 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

ABRAHAM PORTNOV,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

 Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02887-PSG

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

(Re: Docket No. 48) 

 

This court granted Plaintiff Abraham Portnov’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on 

August 1, 2014. The court specifically cautioned that it was not yet able to conclude whether 

Portnov’s complaint was frivolous but nevertheless granted his application.1 In late October, 

Defendant Carnival Corporation moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper 

venue.

2

 The court granted Carnival’s motion, but granted Portnov leave to amend.3 Portnov filed 

an amended complaint in mid-December—which was substantially the same as his initial 

complaint4—and Carnival quickly followed with a renewed motion to dismiss.5 Because the court 

 

1 See Docket No. 7. 

2 See Docket No. 19. 

3 See Docket No. 30. 

4 See Docket No. 32. 

Case 5:14-cv-02887-PSG Document 51 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 5:14-cv-02887-PSG

ORDER REVOKING 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

had already ruled on the enforceability of the mandatory arbitration provision—and in light of 

Portnov’s failure to amend his complaint to allege any new facts that might upset that previous 

finding—the court once again denied Portnov’s complaint, this time with prejudice.6

After entry of judgment in Carnival’s favor, Portnov next filed a motion for relief from this 

court’s order—improperly directing the motion to the Chief Judge of the district.7 Rather than 

addressing the merits of his position—or the deficiencies in Carnival’s—Portnov accused the court 

of bias and of ignoring his arguments altogether.8 This court denied the motion based on 

procedural error but invited him to re-file a corrected version.9 Portnov instead elected appeal to 

the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit now refers to this court whether Portnov’s in forma pauperis 

status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.10 

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.” In other words, if the district court 

determines an appeal is not taken in good faith, the court may revoke IFP status. Courts in this 

district have determined that the term “good faith” means “frivolous.”11 If the appeal as a whole is 

frivolous, IFP status should be revoked.12

 5 See Docket No. 33. 

6 See Docket No. 43. 

7 See Docket No. 46. 

8 See id.

9 See Docket No. 47. 

10 See Case No. 15-15313: Docket No. 3. 

11 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. 674-75 (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”). 

12 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). 

Case 5:14-cv-02887-PSG Document 51 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:14-cv-02887-PSG Document 51 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 3