Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05281-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Hung Ha,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Attorney General, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-5281 JL

ORDER DENYING FEES FOR

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL AND FOR IN

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON

APPEAL

Plaintiff Hung Ha moves for waiver of costs for the reporter’s transcript on appeal.

(Transcript Designation at Docket No. 282) This Court dismissed his complaint with

prejudice and without leave to amend on April 29, 2010 (Order at Docket No. 186) and

found him to be a vexatious litigant, any future pro se pleadings to be subject to pre-filing

review (Order filed July 1, 2010 at Docket No. 230). He filed his Notice of Appeal on June

28, 2010 at Docket No. 279 (Court of Appeals Case No. 10-16506).

By statute, specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. The §1915(a)(3)

determination remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court after the filing of the appeal as

a step that aids in the appeal. In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir.2005)

In this case, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff Ha is taking this appeal in good

faith, following the Court’s finding that Ha is a vexatious litigant. (Order filed July 29, 2010

at Docket No.284). The Court has also referred Mr. Ha, a licensed California attorney, to

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 285 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 3
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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 2 of 3

the State Bar of California for possible discipline for his abuse of the judicial process.

Accordingly, this Court certifies that the appeal in this case “is not taken in good faith.”

Hence, § 1915(a)(3) does not permit granting of in forma pauperis status.

Ha has also submitted a Designation of Transcript, seeking public payment of the

costs for transcripts on appeal for two of the proceedings before this Court, the hearing on

the motions of all Defendants to dismiss his complaint, which was granted with prejudice

and without leave to amend, and the Order to Show Cause hearing after which he was

found to be a vexatious litigant, whose future pro se pleadings in this Court would be

subject to pre-filing review. 

A certification pursuant to the penultimate sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) requires

that the trial judge determine that the appeal by a person “permitted to appeal in forma

pauperis” “is not frivolous” and that it “presents a substantial question.” These latter two

elements are separate, and an order directing the United States to pay for a transcript

necessarily entails a favorable determination on each element. Henderson v. U.S., 734

F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.1984).

The penultimate sentence of § 753(f) provides: 

§ 753. Reporters Transcript

(f) ... Fees for transcripts furnished in other [i.e. not criminal and not habeas corpus]

proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by

the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not

frivolous (but presents a substantial question).... 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). 

These two determinations are matters of judicial discretion. Thomas v. Computax

Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980) (“the Court's discretion”). Although the trial judge

makes an independent determination in the exercise of judicial discretion, the § 753(f)

burden ultimately is on the appellant to persuade the trial judge and, if necessary, a circuit

judge. Jaffe v. U.S., 246 F.2d 760, 761-62 (2d Cir.1957) (L.Hand, J.); Sharpe v. Ogar, 2008

WL 5000155, at *1 (D.Ariz.2008).

As to the initial determination in this case regarding frivolity, there is little difficulty.

Plaintiff has been found to be a vexatious litigant in both state court and now in this Court,

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 285 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 3
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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 3 of 3

after his Complaint was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, but not

before his filing of numerous pointless pleadings, even after instructions from the Court not

to do so, for example attempting to file and serve Defendants with an Amended Complaint

following denial by the Court of his request for leave to amend. 

The second required determination, that the appeal “presents a substantial

question,” also poses no difficulty. In considering whether an appeal presents a “substantial

question,” the trial judge may assess the nature of the appeal by taking into account the

statement of issues and related material. Gonzales v. Riddle, 2008 WL 4723779, at *1

(E.D.Cal.2008). There is a “substantial question” when the issue before the appellate court

is reasonably debatable. Washburn v. Fagan, 2007 WL 2043854, at *2 (N.D.Cal.2007),

citing with approval, Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F.Supp. 903, 905 (D.Md.1959). In this

case, Plaintiff Ha sued a number of public and private entities, including cities, police

departments, and a nonprofit agency, for purely hypothetical relief on the basis of his

concerns that he would be ejected from the premises of the agency that had barred him

after his confrontations with staff and misuse of its job search facilities. He sought an

injunction against the cities and police departments that they be precluded from responding

to any call from the agency if he should trespass on its premises. This is not a debatable

issue nor does it represent a substantial question.

For all the above reasons, Plaintiff’s application to file in forma pauperis on appeal

and for public payment for transcripts on appeal is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2010 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\09-5281\Deny Free IFP appeal.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 285 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3