Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00820/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00820-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

JAVIER MENDEZ VELAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0820-GPC-NLS

ORDER RESPONDING TO

NOTICE OF REFERRAL

(Dkt. No. 47)

vs.

DEA HEADQUARTERS UNIT; et al.,

Defendants.

For the following reasons, the Court certifies Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous, and

his IFP status is REVOKED. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Javier Mendez Velasquez is currently serving a life sentence at the

Soledad Correction Facility. Plaintiff brought this action on April 15, 2011 asserting

Defendants failed to comply with a document request pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act and Privacy Act (“FOIA”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted by the

court on February 16, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 7.) On February 25, 2013, the District

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Javier Mendez Velazquez’s

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 44.) The Court found

that it “cannot provide relief to remedy the improper withholding of documents

- 1 - 11cv0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 50 Filed 04/05/13 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

when the responsive agency records have already been produced.” (Id. at 5, citing

Sanders v. Obama 729 F. Supp. 2d 148, 158 (D.D.C. 2010) aff’d sub nom. Sanders

v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 10-5273, 2011 WL 1769099 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2011).)

Accordingly, the Court found Plaintiff’s claim moot and dismissed the complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) 

On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff Velazquez filed a notice of appeal with the

Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 46.) On March 15, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit submitted a referral notice to the District Court for the limited purpose

of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or

whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Dkt. No. 49.) 

“An 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). Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that

a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the districtcourt action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain

an adequate defense in a criminal case, to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization, unless: (A) the district court--

before or after the notice of appeal is filed--certifies that the appeal is

not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to

proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the

certification or finding; or (B) a statute provides otherwise. 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). A good faith inquiry does not require a preliminary

showing of any particular degree of merit. Ellis v. U.S., 356 U.S. 674, 674 (1958). 

In the absence of an improper motive, good faith is established by the presentation

of any issue which is not plainly frivolous. Id. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

There is no indication Plaintiff Velazquez has an improper motive for

appealing the District Court’s motion to dismiss his complaint. However,

Velazquez has not made the presentation of any issue to be raised on appeal. Under

similar circumstances, the Court in Gilbert v. U.S. held that where the appellant

made no showing regarding the merits of his appeal, the district court properly

- 2 - 11cv0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 50 Filed 04/05/13 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

denied his application for appeal, but without prejudice to its renewal. 278 F.2d 61,

62 (9th Cir. 1960) (“[T]he affidavit filed in the district court made no mention of

any issue to be raised on appeal, frivolous or otherwise. The affidavit presented in

the district court was therefore inadequate.”). Here, Velazquez has not stated any

issue in which he desires to raise upon appeal, frivolous or otherwise. As the appeal

lacks any arguable basis in law or fact, the appeal is determined to be frivolous. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous because it fails

to state any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED

that: (1) Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of the

appeal; and (2) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals that the Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous pursuant to

Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

 

- 3 - 11cv0820-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00820-GPC-NLS Document 50 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 3