Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00283/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00283-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00283-JST 

ORDER DENYING IFP STATUS ON 

APPEAL

Re: ECF No. 19

On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “COMPLAINT against Bay Area 

Legal Aid, Laurel Beeler, Board of Trustees of the Glide Foundation, John Boehner, City and 

County of San Francisco, Commission on Judicial Performance, Harry Dorfman, Episcopal 

Communit Services of San Francisco, Ernest Goldsmith, Kamala Harris, Haven of Rest Ministries, 

Eric Holder, Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, Richard Kramer, Edwin Lee, Marla Miller, 

Barack H. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Project Homeless Connect, Inc., Richard Seeborg, St. Anthony 

Foundation, Superior Court of San Francisco, The Bar Association of San Francisco, The 

President of the United States of America.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 

The Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as it 

appeared that Plaintiff lacked the ability to pay the court’s filing fees. ECF No. 15. Nonetheless, 

the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the Court could 

discern no viable legal theory or grounds for relief from the complaint. Id. The Court gave 

Plaintiff 21 days to amend the complaint. Id. Although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, 

ECF No. 17, the Court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that the complaint continued to 

lack an arguable basis in law or fact. ECF No. 18. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed the present appeal. ECF No. 19. It is the judgment of this 

Case 3:15-cv-00283-JST Document 20 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Court that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous, as it seeks appeal of this Court’s dismissal of a complaint 

that “has ‘no arguable basis in fact or law.’” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 

1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)). Appeal of the 

dismissal is therefore not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00283-JST Document 20 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 2