Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03777/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03777-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

HUNG HA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM E. MCGUINESS, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 07-3777 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 2]

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Hung Ha’s Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 2]. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s

application. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The benefit of proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1121, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “[A]ny court of the United States

may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, the statute also authorizes

the district court to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis “at any time” if the Court determines that:

(1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to state

a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Depot, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1988). However, when reviewing a complaint the Court does not accept as true

unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. See

Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Miranda v. Clark County, Nev., 279

F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2002) ("conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not

defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim"); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d

Case 4:07-cv-03777-SBA Document 6 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 5
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

1187 (9th Cir. 2001); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) ("conclusory

allegations without more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim").

Leave to amend is properly denied "where the amendment would be futile." DeSoto v. Yellow Freight

Sys., 957 F.2d 655, 659 (9th Cir. 1992). But if a plaintiff's complaint is found to be deficient and an

amendment could possibly cure the deficiency, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.

See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987). 

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s IFP Application

The benefit of proceeding IFP is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1121,

1231 (9th Cir. 1984). To obtain this privilege, Ha must demonstrate, to the Court's satisfaction, his

inability to pay the requisite fees and costs. See Williams v. Marshall, 795 F. Supp. 978, 979 (N.D.

Cal. 1992). A statement of poverty is sufficient if it demonstrates that the applicant cannot pay court

costs and still be able to provide himself with the necessities of life. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony,

506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339

(1948)). The facts concerning the applicant’s poverty must be stated with some "particularity,

definiteness and certainty." United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The

Court has discretion to make a factual inquiry into Ha's financial status and to deny his request to

proceed IFP where he is unable or unwilling to verify his poverty. Id. If the Court determines that

Plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue, it shall dismiss the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Here, Ha’s IFP Application, taken at face value, demonstrates that he is unable to pay the

requisite fees and costs. Ha alleges that he is not employed, has no income, and has monthly

expenses ranging from $350-$400. Assuming that Ha is being truthful in his IFP application, which

he signed under penalty of perjury, based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Ha is unable to

pay the filing fee. 

B. Plaintiff's Complaint 

However, Ha’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

Case 4:07-cv-03777-SBA Document 6 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 5
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

District Court is statutorily directed to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if the Court

determines that the action fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Here, it is unclear what causes of action, if any, Ha is seeking to present to this Court. 

However, construing the allegations in the light most favorable to Ha, it appears that Ha is asking

this Court to do either one or both of the following: 1) review a prefiling order of the California

Court of Appeal denying Ha’s request to file an appeal in a state court lawsuit because he has been

declared a vexatious litigant; and 2) declare that the California Vexatious Litigant Statute, California

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391 et seq., is unconstitutional insofar as it encompasses appeals. 

These, however, the Court cannot do. 

To the extent Ha is seeking review of a state court order, Federal district courts may not

exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments. See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair,

805 F2d 888, 890-891 (9th Cir. 1986). To the extent Ha is seeking that this Court declare the

California Vexatious Litigant Statute unconstitutional, this Court has previously analyzed this issue

in depth and determined that it is not unconstitutional. See Wolfe v. George, 385 F.Supp.2d 1004,

1014 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (Armstrong, J.) (California Vexatious Litigant Statute does not violate the

First, Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments).

Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Ha’s IFP Application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE and the Ha’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ha is granted leave

to re-file his IFP Application and to file an amended complaint, by no later than 30 days from the

date of this Order, that specifically sets forth each cause of action that Ha seeks to bring against each

defendant and factual allegations sufficient to support each cause of action. If Ha fails to file an

amended complaint that complies with this Order within the time period allotted herein, this action

shall be dismissed without further notice to Ha pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a Case Management Conference is scheduled for March

Case 4:07-cv-03777-SBA Document 6 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

5, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a

joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior

to the Case Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The

Northern District Of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible

for filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line

and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above indicated date and time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/22/07 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03777-SBA Document 6 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 5
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 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG HA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAM E. MCGUINESS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03777 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 24, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Hung Ha

P.O. Box 367

Berkeley, CA 94701-0367

Dated: October 24, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03777-SBA Document 6 Filed 10/24/07 Page 5 of 5