Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01805/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01805-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FOR APPEAL

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

ALAN BRINKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FOR 

APPEAL

(Re: Docket No. 186)

In November 2014, Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

and California Reconveyance Company settled this case.

1

 Five months later, with this case still on 

its docket, the court issued an order enforcing that settlement.2 After six more months, in light of 

Brinker’s continued refusal to sign an agreement in accordance with the settlement, the court 

finally dismissed Brinker’s complaint3and entered judgment against him.

4 And earlier this year, 

the court denied Brinker’s motion to reopen the case.

5

 Brinker now requests leave to appeal each 

of these orders in forma pauperis.6

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an “appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 

 

1

See Docket No. 116.

2

See Docket No. 148.

3

See Docket No. 170.

4

See Docket No. 171.

5

See Docket No. 184.

6

See Docket No. 186.

Case 5:13-cv-01805-PSG Document 190 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FOR APPEAL

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

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Courts in this district have determined 

that “not taken in good faith” means “frivolous.”7 If the appeal as a whole is frivolous, IFP status 

should not be granted.

8

For over a year, Brinker consistently has refused to abide by the terms of the settlement to 

which he agreed.

9

 The court’s order enforcing the settlement10 made no difference. Even after the 

court dismissed his case and entered judgment, it gave Brinker one last chance to sign a settlement 

agreement.

11

 He again declined that opportunity.

12

 Brinker has yet to present any compelling 

argument that he is entitled to relief of any kind, and the court sees no reason that he can do so on 

appeal. Moreover, in light of Brinker’s sustained intransigence, the court can only conclude that 

this appeal is nothing more than an attempt to prolong the case in hopes of securing a more 

favorable settlement. Because the court finds that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good 

faith, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

7

See Morris v. Lewis, Case No. 4:10-cv-5640-CRB-PR, 2012 WL 1549535, at *3

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (quoting Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958)) (finding 

an appeal to be frivolous where it had no valid grounds on which it was based and equating 

“frivolous” to mean not “taken in good faith”).

8

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) requires IFP status to be authorized for an appeal as a whole and not on a 

piecemeal basis).

9

See Docket No. 116.

10 See Docket No. 148.

11 See Docket No. 177.

12 See Docket No. 183.

Case 5:13-cv-01805-PSG Document 190 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2