Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04948/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04948-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GERALDINE M. ALBEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Steshenko’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). ECF No. 

85. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court 

hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has brought two related age-discrimination actions: 

Steshenko v. Albee, the instant case, and Steshenko v. Gayrard, No. 13-3400. In the instant case, 

Plaintiff alleges he suffered age discrimination in his application to San Francisco State 

University. On October 22, 2012, Plaintiff applied to the CLS Training Program at San Francisco

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

State University. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 45, (“SAC”) ¶ 22. On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff 

was notified that his application was denied due to his late submission of his transcript and that he 

would not be invited for an interview. Id. ¶ 23. On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff subsequently reapplied 

for the spring semester, to begin coursework in 2014. Id. ¶¶ 23–24. According to Plaintiff, 

sometime during July 2013 or August 2013, Defendant Albee and other university employees 

“assembled, communicated and finally decided that Plaintiff [was] not suitable for the CLS 

program because of his age, and therefore should not be invited to an admissions interview.” Id. ¶ 

25 On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff was notified that his application was denied because “he did not 

meet the criteria for selection into the CLS program.” Id. ¶ 26. According to Plaintiff, much 

younger applicants, in their 20s, with much more inferior academic credentials and work 

experience, were invited for interviews and subsequently admitted to the program. Id.

Accordingly, Plaintiff concluded that he was discriminated on the grounds of age. In making this 

conclusion, Plaintiff also alleges that “[n]o persons of the protected age have ever been admitted to 

. . . this program” and that “[t]he age discrimination is rampant.” Id. ¶ 21.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a timely administrative claim with the California State 

University Chancellor’s Office. Id. ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff’s claim was denied. Id. Plaintiff also 

alleges that he gave timely notices of the instant action to Defendants, the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and the Attorney General of the United States. Id. ¶ 9.

B. Procedural History

On October 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed an original Complaint. ECF No. 1. On March 26, 

2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 14. That same day, 

Defendants amended the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 15. After the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion to extend time to file a response to the motion to dismiss, on April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

an opposition. ECF No. 20. On April 23, 2014, Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 21. The Court 

held a hearing on May 15, 2014. Plaintiff filed a supplemental letter brief on May 16, 2014. ECF 

No. 23.

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. In the 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

order, the Court granted with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s 

claims against the Board of Trustees and Plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim against Albee. (“May 20, 

2014 Order”), ECF No. 29 at 17. The Court also granted with prejudice Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against Albee; 

Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination Act claim against Albee; and Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act claim against Albee. May 20, 2014 Order at 17. Finally, the Court declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and thus granted 

without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims—FEHA claim, Bane 

Act claims, and IIED claim. May 20, 2014 Order at 17. 

On May 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 31.

Plaintiff filed a corrected First Amended Complaint on June 29, 2014. (“FAC”), ECF. No. 34. On 

June 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (“MTD”), ECF No. 

33, which Plaintiff opposed on June 29, 2014, (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 35. On July 10, 2014, 

Defendants filed a reply. (“Reply”), ECF No. 36. 

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. ECF No. 41. The Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Board of Trustees with the exception of Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination Act claim. The 

Court dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Albee and 

dismissed with prejudice the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Albee. 

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed his SAC. ECF No. 45. Defendant Board of Trustees 

filed its answer on October 27, 2014. ECF No. 47. That same day, Defendant Albee filed a motion 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process claim. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 

11, 2014, ECF No. 48, and Albee filed a reply on November 18, 2014, ECF No. 49. On February 

25, 2015, the Court granted with prejudice Albee’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process 

claim, leaving Plaintiff with only his claims against Defendant Board of Trustees. ECF No. 76.

On December 19, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 51. More specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s action on 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

the basis of apparent material omissions in Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications. Plaintiff filed 

an opposition, ECF No. 55, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 60. Defendants also filed 

requests for judicial notice, ECF Nos. 54, 61, and a motion for leave to file a supplemental reply 

brief, ECF No. 68. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for leave to file a 

supplemental reply brief, ECF No. 69. On April 1, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 79. 

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration. ECF 

No. 80. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 81. Defendants filed an opposition. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff filed a 

reply. ECF No. 83. On July 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file motion 

for reconsideration, motion for reconsideration, and request to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal. ECF No. 84.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on July 10, 2015. 

ECF No. 85.

II. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides:

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or 

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security 

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a 

statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is 

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a):

(1) Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action 

who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the 

district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:

(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix 

of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for 

fees and costs;

(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and

(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.

. . .

(3) A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the 

district-court action, or who was determined to be financially unable 

to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

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).

The determination of whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the filing 

fee falls within the court’s sound discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 

(9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A party need not be completely 

destitute to be eligible for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). The affidavit supporting an IFP motion is sufficient if it alleges 

facts showing that the plaintiff, because of poverty, cannot pay or give security for court costs and 

still be able to provide herself and her dependents with “the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.

The Court has found that Plaintiff intentionally and knowingly omitted material 

information about his financial status from his previously approved IFP applications before this 

Court. ECF No. 79. The Court found that these material omissions constitute a fraud on the Court. 

Id. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s material 

omissions. Id.; see Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543–44 (7th Cir. 2011). Additionally, Plaintiff 

already has filed a motion requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis. ECF No. 112. The Court 

denied that motion because the Court found that Plaintiff intentionally omitted material 

information from the previously approved IFP applications before this Court. ECF No. 84. 

Plaintiff’s current motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis does not present any new argument 

as to why the Court should depart from its previous ruling, nor does Plaintiff advance any 

argument that this Court should reconsider its prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b). See ECF No. 85.

Therefore, because the Court has found that Plaintiff intentionally omitted material 

information from the previously approved IFP applications before this Court, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 88 Filed 09/01/15 Page 6 of 6