Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 48:1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation Civil Rights

---

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

NANCY J. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-0877 - IEG (POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

[Doc. No. 33]

vs.

DEPUTY EDWARD MACCONOGHY;

SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE; and SGT.

DAVE PASEMAN,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. [Doc. No. 33.] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 25, 2011. [Doc. No. 1.] The Court granted

Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed her complaint sua sponte as frivolous

and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiff’s

complaint alleged that Sheriff Gore had not taken the necessary steps to prevent Deputy

MacConoghy from stalking her. [See Compl.] However, the complaint failed to assert any basis

for federal subject matter jurisdiction, failed to identify any constitutional or statutory rights that

Defendants violated, and failed to allege any facts establishing a cause of action against

Defendants. [See id.] Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted

Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading. [Doc. No. 4.]

On July 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No 10.] In the

- 1 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 36 Filed 12/14/11 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

FAC, Plaintiff alleged that the sheriff’s department had inadequately responded to her complaints

that she was being stalked and was receiving threatening phone calls. [See Doc. No. 10.] 

However, the FAC again failed to assert any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, failed to

identify any constitutional or statutory rights that Defendants violated, and failed to allege any

facts establishing a cause of action against Defendants. [See id.] Therefore, the Court again

dismissed the FAC without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and granted

Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. [Doc. No. 13.] In that Order, the Court

warned Plaintiff that if she filed a second amended complaint and it did not state a claim, the Court

would dismiss the complaint without leave to amend. [Id.]

On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. No.

17.] Plaintiff’s SAC was one page and contained absolutely no factual allegations. [See id.] It

merely stated that the complaint was being submitted without prejudice and expressed Plaintiff’s

concern that the Court would dismiss this complaint as well. [Id.] Therefore, the Court again

dismissed the SAC as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. [Doc. No. 18.] Because Plaintiff

had already twice been given leave to file an amended complaint and still failed to properly state a

claim, the Court dismissed the SAC with prejudice. [Id.]

On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s order dismissing

her SAC with prejudice and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [Doc.

Nos. 22-23.] The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on the

basis that her appeal would not be taken in good faith. [Doc. No. 26.] On November 15, 2011, the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, but dismissed her appeal

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). [Doc. No. 28.] On December 7, 2011, the Ninth

Circuit issued the formal mandate for Plaintiff’s appeal. [Doc. No. 31.] On December 8, 2011,

Plaintiff filed another notice of appeal and another motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal. [Doc. Nos. 32-33.]

///

///

///

- 2 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 36 Filed 12/14/11 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

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “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 good faith requirement is

satisfied if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is ‘not frivolous.’” Gardner v. Pogue, 558

F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). For

purposes of section 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.

1984).

On three occasions, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim. Plaintiff’s pleadings lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff appealed the

Court’s order dismissing her SAC with prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed her appeal as

frivolous. Accordingly, the Court concludes that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court

will not accept any further filings from Plaintiff in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2011 __________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 3 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 36 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3