Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03047/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03047-4/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-03047-EJD

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARY GUSTAFSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-03047-EJD 

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 

Re: Dkt. No. 29 

 On November 5, 2019, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Dkt. 25. On December 

3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit directed this Court to determine whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status should continue during her appeal. See Gustafson v. City of San Jose, 2019 WL 5722474 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-17404 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019). The Court 

may revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status if it determines the appeal is frivolous or in bad 

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 

2002); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (noting that a litigant shows good 

faith by not appealing frivolous issues). “Frivolous means that no legal point is ‘arguable on the 

merits.’” Giebel v. Bonilla, 2008 WL 11393106, at *1 (D. Mont. Dec. 17, 2008) (quoting Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). 

 The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to plead adequate facts necessary to state a cause 

of action. The Court further noted that Plaintiff failed to remedy her inadequate pleadings on three 

separate occasions, despite being advised to seek assistance from the federal pro se program. 

These facts alone do not make an appeal frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 331 (holding 

Case 5:19-cv-03047-EJD Document 30 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:19-cv-03047-EJD

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 

 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 Californi

a

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) alone does not render a case frivolous). The larger issue is that the 

Court could barely decipher what legal claims Plaintiff was attempting to allege. To the extent the 

Court recognized possible claims, Plaintiff failed to adequately allege the legal elements 

comprising the causes of action. See Gustafson, 2019 WL 5722474 at *2. For example, 

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim failed as a matter of law because Plaintiff never “linked” the 

supervisor’s conduct to the alleged constitutional violation, which is her legal burden. See Fayle 

v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Likewise, Plaintiff never alleged “knowledge of 

falsity” or “intent to defraud” for her fraud claim. Gustafson, 2019 WL 5722474 at *2. Hence, 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims not just for failure to plead enough facts to prove a cause of 

action, but also because Plaintiff failed to allege the legal elements constituting her causes of 

action. Thus, “no legal point is arguable on the merits” and so “any appeal in this matter is 

frivolous.” Giebel, 2008 WL 11393106 at *1. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-03047-EJD Document 30 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 2