Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04716/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04716-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ALEXANDER NODARSE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK OBAMA (President 

of the United States); et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4716 MHP (pr)

ORDER 

This action was dismissed and judgment was entered on November 18, 2009. On that

same date, the court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The matter

returns for the court's attention to several miscellaneous motions plaintiff has filed, the first

two of which apparently crossed in the mail with the judgment because they were mailed

before the judgment was entered, but were stamped "filed" after the judgment was entered. 

Plaintiff's "motion for verification" is DISMISSED because it requests no relief. 

(Docket # 14.) The motion does not request any relief from the court, but merely reports that

plaintiff had sent in the completed in forma pauperis application as he was directed to do. To

the extent plaintiff intended to ask whether the materials reached the courthouse, the answer

is that an in forma pauperis application dated October 20, 2009 (with a certificate of funds

and inmate trust account statement attached to it) was filed on October 26, 2010. 

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis that was mailed on November 17,

2009 and filed on November 30, 2009 is DISMISSED as unnecessary because it was

duplicative of an earlier application. (Docket # 15.) The court does not construe this

Case 3:09-cv-04716-MHP Document 23 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

application to be an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because (a) at the

time plaintiff mailed it, the action had not yet been dismissed and no appeal would have been

contemplated, and (b) a notice of appeal was not filed until almost six weeks later. 

Moreover, plaintiff did not need further authorization to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

in this action. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). 

Plaintiff's "motion for consideration of appointment of counsel" filed on December 4,

2009 is DENIED. (Docket # 16.) As the court explained when it denied plaintiff's first

motion for appointment of counsel, there is no reason to appoint counsel in light of the

dismissal of this action. See Order of Dismissal, p. 3. The denial of this motion is without

prejudice to plaintiff filing a new motion in the appellate court in his pending appeal.

Plaintiff's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Docket # 21.) A

certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal from "the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State

court." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability is not necessary in this

action because it is not a habeas corpus proceeding; plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of a

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04716-MHP Document 23 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2