Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02897/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02897-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY BORESS,

Plaintiff,

 v

SCOTT REYNOLDS, et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C 03-2897 VRW

 ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Harry Boress moves for leave to pursue

his recently noticed appeal to the Ninth Circuit in forma pauperis. 

Doc #38. 

The history of this litigation is described in the

court’s order of August 5, 2004, Doc #21, and is therefore only

sketched here. Dissatisfied that the California Supreme Court had

denied review of the probate and appellate courts’ conclusion that

plaintiff was not entitled to relief for the alleged

maladministration of his deceased brother’s estate, plaintiff filed

a new action in the Contra Costa superior court raising issues

Case 3:03-cv-02897-VRW Document 39 Filed 04/20/06 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

identical to those litigated in the initial proceeding. He was

thereafter declared a vexatious litigant by the California courts.

Plaintiff then attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of

this court to re-litigate the same issues. After concluding that

the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (based in part on

collateral estoppel), the court further determined that sanctions

were appropriate under 28 USC § 1927 due to the vexatious

multiplication of proceedings worked by plaintiff’s obstinate

pursuit of claims that were long ago rejected by the California

courts. Doc #21. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal, Doc #33,

and subsequently denied plaintiff’s petition for rehearing, Doc

#32, stating that no further filings would be accepted. Plaintiff

next filed a “motion for equitable relief” in this court which, to

the extent it is comprehensible, is meritless on its face and does

not appear to be subject matter over which the court has

jurisdiction. The court’s denial of this motion, Doc #35, is the

subject of plaintiff’s latest appeal.

Pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(a)(3), the court CERTIFIES that

plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. Plaintiff’s motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02897-VRW Document 39 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2