Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02348/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02348-1/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2348 JLS (PCL)

ORDER REVOKING

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

(ECF No. 37)

vs.

C. RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in

this civil action. On December 17, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an injunctive order,

denied Plaintiff’s motion for a declaratory order, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

time to file objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed

a notice of appeal on January 3, 2013, (ECF No. 33), and the Ninth Circuit requested the Court

determine “whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is

frivolous or taken in bad faith.” (ECF No. 37.) For the following reasons, the Court certifies

Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous, and her IFP status is REVOKED.

- 1 - 11cv2348

Case 3:11-cv-02348-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at CSPSacramento in Represa, CA, brings this action against Defendants C. Ramos, J. Eustice, M. Lee, and

T. Glover alleging violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) asserts that Defendants conspired to violate her civil rights; violated her First

Amendment right to be free from retaliation; violated her First Amendment right of access to the

courts; and used excessive force against her and denied her medical care in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (ECF No. 21.) 

On June 29, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status based on the

“three-strikes rule” set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and to dismiss the FAC for failure to pay filing

fees. (ECF No. 23.) On October 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a report and

recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and revoke

Plaintiff’s IFP status. (ECF No. 26.) On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the underlying motion

for an injunctive and declaratory order and an extension of time to file objections to the R&R. (ECF

No. 31.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an injunctive and declaratory order and granted

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of

appeal from the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for an injunctive and declaratory order. 

(ECF No. 33.)

DISCUSSION

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

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” See Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d

1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). The good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is

demonstrated when an individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous

if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. First, Plaintiff’s factual

allegations are contradicted by her own exhibits. According to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s

motion, Plaintiff requested a Health Record Review on September 16, 2012, but failed to complete

- 2 - 11cv2348

Case 3:11-cv-02348-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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

and return a CDCR 7385 Authorization for Release of Information and a Health Record Questionnaire. 

(ECF No. 31 at 14.) Subsequently, on October 30, 2012, her Health Record Review request was

cancelled for failure to return the necessary documents. Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, these

exhibits do not reveal a “conspiracy” to withhold her medical records, but only that Plaintiff has not

been diligent in following the procedure to obtain her medical records. 

Second, Plaintiff has failed to identify any legal basis for an injunctive or declaratory order.

Plaintiff cites to various California state court cases discussing: (1) the “relative hardship test” used

to analyze the grant of an equitable easement to an encroaching user; (2) the “primary right theory”

defining when a cause of action survives the plaintiff’s death; (3) a jury instruction that motive is not

an element of the crime charged and need not be shown; and (4) that rewriting a statute is a legislative,

rather than judicial, prerogative. (ECF No. 31 at 8-9.) Plaintiff also quotes a 7th Circuit opinion

discussing whether a claim of cruel and unusual punishment presents a genuine issue of material fact. 

(ECF No. 31 at 9.) These citations have no bearing on the instant case, and Plaintiff fails to assert any

legal basis in support of her motion.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that she is “being poisoned daily,” the Court notes

that Plaintiff’s conclusory statement is unsupported by any facts and contradicted by the medical

records analyzed in the Magistrate’s R&R.1

 (ECF No. 26 at 5-6.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s appeal is

frivolous, and her in forma pauperis status should be revoked.

///

///

///

///

///

///

1

Plaintiff has previously filed twenty-six cases since 2006 alleging that correctional officials

have poisoned her with arsenic. Notably, in Williams v. Murray, 2011 WL 2391099 (E.D. Cal. June

10, 2011), Plaintiff made nearly identical allegations to the current action. The United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California concluded that Plaintiff’s claims were implausible and

ultimately revoked Plaintiff’s IFP status.

- 3 - 11cv2348

Case 3:11-cv-02348-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous because it lacks any arguable basis in law

or fact. Thus, the Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED

for purposes of her appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals that the Court certifies, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv2348

Case 3:11-cv-02348-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 01/25/13 Page 4 of 4