Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04255/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04255-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUSTEE COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM CUTLIP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04255-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

[Re: ECF 19]

Before the Court is Defendant William Cutlip’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. Having considered the motion, relevant law, and the record in this case, the 

Court hereby CERTIFIES that the appeal is not taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES the 

motion. 

On July 27, 2016, Cutlip removed this unlawful detainer action to this Court. ECF 1. 

Magistrate Judge Nathanel M. Cousins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) remanding 

the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 9. Cutlip filed an objection to 

the R&R, raising several objections based on affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may 

allege under federal law and claiming that this Court has jurisdiction because the action arises out 

of a federal land patent. ECF 15. Because the Court concluded that it did not have subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Court remanded the action to the Santa Clara Superior Court. ECF 16. 

Cutlip now files a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Mot., ECF 19. 

In his motion, Cutlip states that he is “objecting to a final order that appears to ignore civil rights 

violations, the taking of private lands prior to a full and fair trial, corruption of public officials, 

and assign rights & forever benefits of a Land Patent that are the undisputed allodial title 

belonging to appellant.” Id. at 2. The Court assumes that this refers to the Court’s finding that it 

does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action, as that is the basis for the Court’s 

prior order. See ECF 16.

Case 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 20 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

“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; the 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) (citing 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Hooker 

v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (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. 

Here, the Court finds that Defendant’s appeal is not taken in good faith because it is 

frivolous. As this Court explained in its order adopting Judge Cousins’ R&R, this Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear this unlawful detainer action because (1) federal jurisdiction

cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense or an actual or anticipated counterclaim 

and (2) federal land patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See ECF 16. 

Therefore, to the extend Defendant seeks to have the unlawful detainer action heard in federal 

court because he seeks to raise federal defenses and/or counterclaims or because his claim is based 

on a federal land patent, the claim lacks an arguable basis in law. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court CERTIFIES that Defendant’s appeal is not taken in 

good faith. Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is therefore 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 20 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2