Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06466/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06466-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH COONEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES 

COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 12-6466 CW

ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO APPEAL IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Deborah Cooney, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal 

this Court's Amended Judgment dated November 26, 2014. The matter 

comes before the Court on Cooney's motion for leave to appeal in

forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, Cooney's motion

is DENIED.

"[A] party to a district court action who desires to appeal 

in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court." Fed. 

R. App. P. 24(a)(1). "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); see also Hooker v. 

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

"not in good faith" to mean frivolous). An appeal is frivolous if 

it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "If the district court denies 

the motion, it must state its reasons in writing." Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(2).

Case 4:12-cv-06466-CW Document 73 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Cooney's claims, briefly stated, were that she was injured by 

radio waves released by smart meters installed on her house and in 

her neighborhood. Cooney sought monetary damages, declaratory 

relief and an injunction against several Defendants. The Court 

granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that several

Defendants were shielded from suit by the Eleventh Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and/or legislative immunity, that 

the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Cooney's state 

law claims and that Cooney's cited federal laws were inapplicable. 

The Court concluded that amendment would be futile and thus 

dismissed Cooney's complaint without leave to amend. 

In her motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, Cooney 

lists seven bases for taking an appeal. Having reviewed the 

motion, the Court finds that her appeal has no arguable basis in 

law or fact. The Court dismissed her suit based on firmlyestablished black-letter law; Cooney simply does not have a case 

against her named Defendants that can proceed in federal court. 

Accordingly, Cooney's motion is DENIED and this Court CERTIFIES 

that her appeal is frivolous and therefore is not taken in good 

faith.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Cooney's motion for leave to 

proceed IFP is DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure 24(a)(4)(A) and (B), the Clerk shall notify the Ninth 

Circuit that this Court has denied Cooney's motion to proceed IFP

and certified that her appeal is not taken in good faith.

Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(5), Cooney may file a motion for leave to 

Case 4:12-cv-06466-CW Document 73 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

proceed IFP on appeal in the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) 

days after service of notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-06466-CW Document 73 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 3