Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AROR-ARK O’DIAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

No. C 19-01854 WHA

ORDER RE IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS ON

APPEAL

Our court of appeals has referred this matter to the undersigned judge for the limited

purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for pro se plaintiff

Aror-Ark O’Diah (Dkt. No. 34). A prior order granted plaintiff’s IFP application and screened

his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), holding that the complaint failed to state a claim

for relief (Dkt. No. 10). Specifically, that order found that (id. at 3–4):

plaintiff thr[ew] a wide net, naming dozens of defendants, including

federal judges, the United States Department of State, the United States

Postal Service, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal

Revenue Service, United Parcel Service, Hewlett-Packard, Chase Bank,

Staples Store, Western Union, such disparate individuals as a driver who

allegedly hit plaintiff with his car, and health providers in several

locations where plaintiff sought treatment on multiple occasions. The

allegations [we]re inter-woven between unconnected defendants over

nearly two decades. In the 146 sequentially-numbered paragraphs of the

complaint, not a single viable legal claim [was] plainly alleged, and no

defendant reasonably could [have been] expected to prepare a proper

response to th[e] pleading[.]

Under Section 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.” “[G]ood faith is established by the

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 35 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674

(1958); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). A

complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term “frivolous” “embraces not only the inarguable

legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Ibid. 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint and notices of appeal are replete with fanciful allegations of

conspiracies (see Dkt. Nos. 10 at 2; 16 at 4; 30 at 2), and the complaint lacks any arguable basis

in law or in fact. This order thus reiterates that the complaint is frivolous. Accordingly, this

order CERTIFIES that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith within the meaning of Section

1915(a)(3) and thereby REVOKES plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Clerk

shall please notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 35 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 2