Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05423/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05423-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-05423-LHK

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

M. L.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVALINA BARTH,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-05423-LHK 

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

On October 5, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff M.L.’s motion for the appointment of a 

guardian ad litem and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 26.

1

 Plaintiff filed a 

timely notice of appeal from the Court’s Order. ECF No. 28. On October 29, 2015, the Ninth 

Circuit referred the matter back to this Court “for the limited purpose of determining whether 

[Plaintiff’s] in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is 

frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See No. 15-17130, Dkt. 2. The Court CERTIFIES that 

Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

Motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all ECF references are from the docket of No. 14-5423 in the 

Northern District of California.

Case 5:14-cv-05423-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/01/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-05423-LHK

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

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 California

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Section 1915 permits a court to authorize an appeal without the prepayment of fees if 

the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that the party is unable to 

pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal is a privilege, however, not a right. Thus, “[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. In the absence of some evident

improper motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue on 

appeal that is not frivolous. See Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)); see also Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092. An 

action is frivolous for purposes of § 1915 if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Shehee 

v. King, No. 1:14-CV-00590-AWI-GSA-PC, 2015 WL 1839817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) 

(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-30 (1989)). A complaint or appeal lacks an 

arguable basis in law only if controlling authority requires a finding that the facts alleged fail to 

establish even an “arguable legal claim.” Guti v. INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation 

omitted). While the facts alleged should generally be accepted as true, clearly baseless

contentions may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 

(1992).

Here, Plaintiff’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in fact or law and no reasonable person 

would find that an appeal of the Court’s rulings would have merit. As a minor, Plaintiff cannot 

bring suit without a guardian ad litem. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). This Court declined to 

appoint a guardian for Plaintiff because Plaintiff failed to suggest a guardian and Plaintiff 

incorrectly asserted that the appointment of a guardian was requested by a California Superior 

Court. ECF No. 26. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice to 

Plaintiff bringing suit through the appropriate means. Id. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff’s 

appeal of this Court’s order lacks an “arguable legal claim” and is therefore frivolous. Guti, 908 

F.2d at 496.

Case 5:14-cv-05423-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/01/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-05423-LHK

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

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 California

Accordingly, the Court hereby CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Any further request

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis should be directed, on motion, to the Ninth Circuit, in 

accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(5). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05423-LHK Document 34 Filed 11/01/15 Page 3 of 3