Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02839/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02839-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

16cv2839-JLS (PCL)

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

DIALLO B. DARRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD D. HUFFMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2839-JLS (PCL)

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 8)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP 

Mot.”). (ECF No. 8.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, (ECF No. 3), but ultimately dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims, (ECF 

Nos. 5, 6).

Plaintiff has now submitted a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 8.) 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) generally provides that “[a] party who was 

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on 

appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization . . . .” However, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). An appeal is not 

taken in good faith if the plaintiff asserts claims that are frivolous. See Hooker v. Am. 

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:16-cv-02839-JLS-PCL Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2839-JLS (PCL)

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

The present case stems from Plaintiff’s assertions that three associate justices of the 

California Court of Appeals took certain actions during the pendency of Plaintiff’s 

underlying appeal that “divested [t]h[e]m of jurisdiction” such that their “[a]ppellate 

review thereafter was done ‘under color of law.’ ” (Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 4.) The Court 

initially dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because his “claims against the three named 

Defendants are for actions taken in their judicial capacities” and are therefore barred both 

by the doctrine of judicial immunity and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 itself. (Order Granting Mot. to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Compl. Without Prejudice 4, ECF No. 3.) The 

Court highlighted for Plaintiff the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and despite 

“serious doubts that Plaintiff w[ould] be able to cure his Complaint through amendment” 

nonetheless granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint in case he was merely confused 

as to the appropriate legal theory under which to seek redress. (Id.) However, Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint asserted the same underlying factual predicate for his claims, (see 

generally Am. Compl.), and thus the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice 

under (1) the doctrine of judicial immunity, (2) section 1983 itself, and (3) the RookerFeldman doctrine, (Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice 2, ECF No. 5).

There is no question that any or all of these long-settled legal principles bars 

Plaintiff’s case, and thus any appeal taken would be merely frivolous. Accordingly, the 

Court REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02839-JLS-PCL Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2