Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00064/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00064-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

MORRIS MESTER, CDCR #C-77174,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-0064-H

(NLS)

ORDER CERTIFYING

APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS

AND REVOKING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS ON

APPEAL

vs.

PARAMO, Warden; KELSO,

Receiver; DR. SEELEY, CEO; DR.

WALKER, CME; DR. CASIAN,

M.D.; DR. NEWTON, M.D.; Dr.

CHOKATOS; M.D.; LACURON,

R.N.; BROWN, Sergeant; HURM,

Correctional Officer; DR. GHAUSI,

M.D.; DR. GLAZENER, M.D.,

Defendants.

On January 8, 2013, Morris Mester (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro

se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 1.) On January 18, 2013, the Court

granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his complaint, with

leave to amend, for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) &

1915A(b). (Doc. No. 6 at 9-10.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for

reconsideration, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion to relate back. (Doc. Nos.

12, 15, 17.) On March 8, 2013, the Court denied these motions but granted Plaintiff

- 1 - 13cv64

Case 3:13-cv-00064-H-NLS Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 1 of 4
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

an additional sixty (60) days leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 18.) 

Rather than file an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth

Circuit. (Doc. No. 19.) On April 2, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a referral notice 1

directing this Court to determine whether Plaintiff should retain his IFP status on

appeal, or whether instead the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Doc. No. 24.) 

For the following reasons the Court concludes that the appeal is frivolous and certifies

it as not taken in good faith. 

Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party

granted leave to proceed IFP in district court, as Plaintiff was here, may continue in

that status on appeal unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in

good faith, which in this context means that it is frivolous. See Ellis v. United States,

356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)similarly providesthat an appeal

may not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies it is not taken in good faith. 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). 

Plaintiff appeals the Court’s Orders dismissing his complaint for failure to state

a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) and denying his motion for

reconsideration. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims following sua

sponte screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) because his

allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and later denied

reconsideration because Plaintiff identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error,

or manifest injustice. (Doc. Nos. 6, 18.) 

As the Court explained in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff has not

adequately alleged any constitutional violations sufficient to establish liability under

On April 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “declaration” seeking additional time to file 1

documents relating to his appeal. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court advises Plaintiff that he should

file his “declaration” and any other documents relating to his appeal with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, rather than this Court. 

- 2 - 13cv64

Case 3:13-cv-00064-H-NLS Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 2 of 4
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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claim that he should not have been denied “single cell”

status does not raise constitutional concerns and is moot. See Olim v. Wakinekona,

461 U.S. 238, 244-50 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Moody v.

Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 87 n.9 (1976). Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the absence of

a bath mat and his disagreements with his treating physicians do not rise to the level

of Eighth Amendment violations. See Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 938-39 (9th Cir.

1996) (finding that prisoner’s injury due to faulty oven door was not sufficient to state

an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim because Plaintiff did not

plead any “exacerbating conditions” which rendered him unable to “provide for [his]

own safety,” i.e., that prison officials precluded himfromavoiding the faulty oven door

or rendered him unable to perceive its defective condition); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating difference of opinion between prisoner and doctor

does not amount to deliberate indifference necessary for § 1983 liability). Moreover,

Plaintiff has not adequately pled a basis for holding Defendants Paramo, Kelso and

Seeley liable in their supervisory capacity asthe complaintset forth no specific factual

allegations regarding those defendants. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has no

arguable basis in law or fact to appeal the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff’s appeal is

therefore frivolous. 

Moreover, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure

the noted deficiencies, and granted Plaintiff an additional 60 days to do so following

the Court’s March 7, 2013 Order. (Doc. Nos. 6, 18.) There was therefore no final

judgment for Plaintiff to appeal. See WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135-

37 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (holding a district court's dismissal that expressly grants

leave to amend is not final, and a final judgment must be obtained before such a case

becomes appealable). The exception allowing a premature notice of appeal to be

treated as timely filed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) does not apply. See Serine v.

Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1993) (order) ( “Rule 4(a)(2) permits a notice of

appeal froma nonfinal decision to operate as a notice of appeal from the final judgment

- 3 - 13cv64

Case 3:13-cv-00064-H-NLS Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 3 of 4
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

only when a district court announces a decision that would be appealable if

immediately followed by the entry of judgment.”). Plaintiff still has several weeks to

file an amended complaint within the time granted by the Court. Plaintiff’s appeal is

therefore frivolous on the additional ground that the case is not yet appealable. See

WMX Tech, 104 F.3d at 1135-37.

Conclusion

The Court certifies the appeal as frivolous and not taken in good faith. The

Court therefore revokes Plaintiff’s IFP statusfor the purposes of his appeal. The Court

directs the Clerk to notify Plaintiff and the Ninth Circuit of this Order. See Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a)(4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2013

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 4 - 13cv64

Case 3:13-cv-00064-H-NLS Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 4 of 4