Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JAMAL AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00763-HSG 

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS FOR PURPOSES 

OF APPEAL

Plaintiff Jamal Austin filed this action on February 19, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. The Court 

granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on February 25, 2015. Dkt. No. 5. On 

November 13, 2015, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute the case. Dkt. No. 41. On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. No. 42. On November 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a 

notice of referral to this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status should continue for his appeal. Dkt. No. 44. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous. This action was dismissed without 

prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The Court did not render any final judgment on 

the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff is free to refile those claims if he is able to adequately 

pursue them. However, it is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to appear at three consecutive court 

hearings, even though the Court made a number of special accommodations. These 

accommodations included sending Plaintiff two letters authorizing court security officers to allow 

him into the courthouse without an identification card (in response to a letter in which Plaintiff 

said he did not have such identification), and prearranging to call Plaintiff at his home at the 

designated time of the last hearing so that he could appear by telephone. The Court also 

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/07/15 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

repeatedly suggested that Plaintiff consult the Court’s pro se Legal Help Center for assistance, but 

Plaintiff does not appear to have done so. Moreover, per defense counsel’s sworn declaration, 

Plaintiff failed to respond to counsel’s communications regarding the case on multiple occasions. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that this appeal is frivolous and revokes Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status for the purposes of his appeal. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 

(9th Cir. 2002) (noting that revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where district 

court finds the appeal to be frivolous). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2