Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02269/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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 - 09cv2269

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MARTINI; ANNETTE

MARTINI,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2269 H (JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

vs. FORMA PAUPERIS

ANDREW J. GUILFORD, as an

individual; LISA BREDAHL, as an

individual,

Defendants.

On October 14, 2009, Plaintiffs Anthony Martini and Annette Martini (collectively

“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,

naming as defendants the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, a U.S. District Judge for the Central

District of California, and Lisa Bredahl, Judge Guilford’s Court Clerk. (Doc. No. 1.) After

reviewing the complaint, the Court noted that the Central District of California is the proper

venue for this action, and ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the Court should not

dismiss the complaint for improper venue. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court also noted that Defendants

appear to enjoy absolute immunity for their acts on which the complaint is based, and ordered

Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the complaint on grounds of

Case 3:09-cv-02269-H-JMA Document 11 Filed 12/28/09 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 - 09cv2269

judicial immunity. (Id.) On November 17, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a response and opposition to

the order to show cause. (Doc. No. 4.) On November 24, 2009, the Court dismissed the case

for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Doc. No. 5.) The Court also noted that

Defendant Guilford’s actions are protected by absolute immunity. (Id.) On December 22,

2009, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

(Doc. Nos. 7 & 8.) 

A party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion with the

district court and attach an affidavit that “(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the

Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims

an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.”

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Pursuant to 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." An

appeal is taken in good faith for purposes of in forma pauperis petition if at least one issue or

claim is found to be nonfrivolous. Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.

2002). An issue is "frivolous" if it has no arguable basis in fact or law. See O'Loughlin v.

Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for improper venue. (Doc. No. 5.)

Additionally, the Court noted that Defendants’ actions are protected by absolute immunity.

(Id.) Instead of filing their complaint in the proper district, Plaintiffs initiated this appeal.

(Doc. No. 7.) In the affidavit accompanying Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis, Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants did not Respond and Plaintiffs were not given an

Opportunity to appear in Court to proceed with their Legal Complaint.” (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) The

Court notes, however, that since Defendants were never served in this action, they had no duty

to respond. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith.

 O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d at 617. Further, this Court CERTIFIES that any in forma

pauperis appeal from this Court’s order dismissing the action (Doc. No. 5) would not be taken

“in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the Court

Case 3:09-cv-02269-H-JMA Document 11 Filed 12/28/09 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 - 09cv2269

DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2009

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:09-cv-02269-H-JMA Document 11 Filed 12/28/09 Page 3 of 3