Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04459/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04459-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

MAURICE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOOTHILL COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04459-BLF 

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS FOR APPEAL 

PURPOSES ONLY

[Re: ECF 42]

On October 3, 2014, pro se plaintiff Maurice Davis filed a complaint against defendants 

Foothill College, Elizabeth Barkley, Mark Anderson, Patricia Hyland, Kimberly Messina, Linda 

Thor, and Judy Miner alleging denial of due process and race and disability discrimination in 

connection with a music history course that he took at Foothill College in Spring 2014. See 

Compl., ECF 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on October 

9, 2014. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, to which Plaintiff filed 

no opposition. The magistrate judge to whom the case initially was assigned heard argument on 

the motion on December 16, 2014, but Plaintiff did not attend. The magistrate judge 

recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the undersigned 

agreed with that recommendation. See Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF 25; Order 

Adopting R&R, ECF 27. In view of Plaintiff’s pro se status, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to 

amend his complaint to address the numerous deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s

Report and Recommendation. See Order Adopting R&R at 1-2.

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See FAC, ECF 

33. Defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and that motion 

is presently pending and set for hearing on May 14, 2015. Defendants filed their motion to 

Case 5:14-cv-04459-BLF Document 44 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

dismiss on February 2, 2015 and Plaintiff, to date, has filed no response. 

In the meantime, Plaintiff on February 3, 2015 filed a three-page “Motion for an 

Immediate (Emergency) Temporary Restraining Order.” See Appl. for TRO, ECF 36. Plaintiff 

sought an order requiring defendant Foothill College to lift a registration hold placed on his 

academic record in connection with a charge of plagiarism, and further requiring Foothill College 

to allow him to retake the final in his music history course. After hearing opposition from 

Defendants, this Court denied Plaintiff’s TRO request, finding that he failed to demonstrate any 

likelihood of success on the merits or likely irreparable harm in the absence of the injunctive relief 

sought. The Court further determined that the equities and public interest weighed against granting 

mandatory injunctive relief. Order Denying Appl. For TRO, ECF 39. Plaintiff appealed this decision 

on February 23, 2015. See ECF 40. Now before this Court is a March 2, 2015 referral notice from the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referring this matter to the undersigned “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.” Referral Notice, ECF 42.

“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). “In the absence of some evident improper 

motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly 

frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674 (1958) (per curiam). Thus, an appeal is taken 

in good faith if it presents at least one issue or claim that is non-frivolous. See Hooker v. Amer. 

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).

As addressed in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s TRO application, it was Plaintiff’s 

burden to show circumstances warranting an exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant the 

extraordinary remedy of a TRO. Order Denying Appl. For TRO at 3. Plaintiff made no showing on 

any of the factors that courts normally consider in determining whether to grant injunctive relief. Id. at 

3-5 (applying factors identified in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 

(2008) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) to Plaintiff’s 

application). The Court accordingly denied Plaintiff’s application due to a complete lack of evidence 

supporting entitlement to injunctive relief. 

Case 5:14-cv-04459-BLF Document 44 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Furthermore, there are serious questions concerning the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims, 

as already addressed in the court order dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint and revived in 

Defendants’ second motion to dismiss.1 See R&R, 2-3; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss FAC, ECF 34. This, 

coupled with Plaintiff’s abject failure to satisfy his burden of demonstrating entitlement to injunctive 

relief, leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s denial of his application for 

TRO is plainly frivolous and thus not taken in good faith. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3) solely in connection with this appeal. In forma pauperis status remains in effect for the 

ongoing district court proceeding before the undersigned. The Clerk of the Court shall notify Plaintiff 

and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of this ruling as soon as is practicable.

On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for “Waiver of Court Reporter’s Fees,” which 

simply states: “Plaintiff Maurice Davis hereby requests a WAIVER OF COURT REPORTER’S FEES

in this action.” ECF 43. The Court construes this as a request to waive court reporter fees for 

transcripts in connection with Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s denial of his TRO Application. The 

Court has determined that this appeal is frivolous and that Plaintiff’s IFP status should be revoked for 

appeal purposes. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of court reporter fees.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

This Court is set to hear argument on the legal sufficiency of the claims in the FAC on May 14, 

2015.

2

In any event, this request is moot because there do not appear to be any relevant transcripts in the 

record.

Case 5:14-cv-04459-BLF Document 44 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3