Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03078-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

DENYS NAMYSTIUK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SMITH BARNEY and JAINA SYSTEMS

NETWORK, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-03078 WHA

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

After plaintiff Denys Namystiuk failed to appear at the initial case management

conference, an order dismissed his case for failure to prosecute and for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction because the complaint was incomprehensible (Dkt. No. 22). Plaintiff then filed a

motion for reconsideration, stating that he would not come to the United States to litigate this

case and wished to remain in the Ukraine, and litigate via phone conference. An order denied

that motion and plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 27).

Plaintiff then filed a second motion titled “motion for leave to file 1th [sic] motion for

reconsideration.” This second motion again stated that plaintiff would not come to the United

States to litigate and raised essentially the same points made in plaintiff’s first motion for

reconsideration. An order denied plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration because it was

largely incomprehensible and added nothing not addressed in plaintiff’s first motion.

Case 3:15-cv-03078-WHA Document 36 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

After an order denied plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration, he filed a motion “to

set aside (cancel) order” (Dkt. No. 32). Presumably because he did not like the undersigned

judge’s previous orders, plaintiff set his latest motion for a hearing before Judge Thelton

Henderson.

Now, our court of appeals has referred plaintiff’s appeal to the district court to determine

whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal. In Hooker v. American

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002), our court of appeals held that revocation of IFP

status is appropriate where the district court finds the appeal to be frivolous. Based on

plaintiff’s incomprehensible pleadings, refusal to come to the Untied States to litigate his case,

and redundant motions for reconsideration, this order finds plaintiff’s appeal to be frivolous and

hereby REVOKES PLAINTIFF’S IFP STATUS. The CLERK SHALL PLEASE SERVE THIS ORDER on

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03078-WHA Document 36 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 2