Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00285/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00285-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00285 JLT (PC)

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

(Doc. 37)

ORDER DISREGARDING REQUEST 

FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. 36)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On December 3, 

2012, the Court dismissed this case based upon Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 27). This 

occurred only after Plaintiff’s four unsuccessful attempts to state facts to support a claim (Docs. 

1, 14, 19, 25) and the Court providing Plaintiff explicit instruction as to the deficiencies of his 

complaint. (Doc. 24)

Soon thereafter, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 33) Also, on January 24, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the jurisdiction over this matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals.1 (Doc. 36) On January 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to this 

Court for the limited purpose of deciding whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should

 

1

Plaintiff is advised that transfer of jurisdiction occurs automatically and no such motion 

is required. Thus, the motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 

36), is DISREGARDED. 

Case 1:10-cv-00285-JLT Document 38 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 3
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

continue on appeal. (Doc. 37) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned concludes that it 

should not.

“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). “In the absence of some evident improper 

motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly 

frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (1958). 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.

In his third amended pleading, Plaintiff sets forth a myriad of complaints related to the 

operation of Tehachapi State Prison. (Doc. 25) However, none state a claim. 

For example, Plaintiff complains that the prison officials failed to properly process his 

“legal mail.” However, he admits that the mail at issue was not truly “legal mail,” given the 

correspondence was not directed to his lawyer or the court. Therefore, it was not entitled to the 

type of processing—opening by prison officials only in his presence--which Plaintiff claimed was 

due. Similarly, Plaintiff claimed that mail was not timely delivered and that his mail was being 

opened in retaliation for the grievances he submitted against a particular officer. However, 

Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support these claims and, though the Court instructed Plaintiff 

that he was required to name—or describe--the person or persons who violated the claimed right, 

Plaintiff did not do so.

Likewise, Plaintiff complained the prison’s law library was insufficient. He complained 

that he was ill-informed about the requirements of habeas litigation because of the library’s 

inadequacy. As a result, he alleged that part of his habeas corpus petition was determined to be 

successive. Notably, despite instruction from the Court, Plaintiff failed to provide any facts to 

show he was prevented him from presenting a non-frivolous claim and, therefore, he did not 

demonstrate an actual injury. Johnson v. Hornung, 358 F. Supp. 2d 910, 918 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

(dismissing law library access claim where the claimed injury was the dismissal of a successive 

habeas corpus petition).

Case 1:10-cv-00285-JLT Document 38 Filed 01/30/13 Page 2 of 3
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

In addition, Plaintiff complained that prison officials failed to properly process inmate 

appeals. However, this complaint does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Ramirez 

v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 

1988)). Plaintiff also complained he was placed in Administrative Segregation but failed, despite 

instruction to do so, to provide a factual basis to support that he suffered an atypical prison 

hardship. May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (stating that Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation”). 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds the appeal from the dismissal of the action

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact and is not taken in good faith.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

(Doc. 36) is DISREGARDED; 

2. The Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and Plaintiff’s 

in forma pauperis status is REVOKED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:10-cv-00285-JLT Document 38 Filed 01/30/13 Page 3 of 3