Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05027/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05027-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1 

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN NKWUO,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

METROPCS, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

(Re: Docket No. 69) 

On November 17, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff John Nkwuo’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis in this suit.

1

 After the parties resolved some disputes over whether Nkwuo had 

served his complaint properly, in April 2015 Defendants MetroPCS, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).2 The court granted Defendants’ motion, but granted 

Nkwuo leave to amend in light of his pro se status.3

 Nkwuo filed an amended complaint in June, 

which strongly resembled his initial complaint4 and was quickly followed by a renewed motion to 

 

1 See Docket No. 4. 

2 See Docket No. 37. 

3 See Docket No. 48. 

4 See Docket No. 50. 

Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 70 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

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

dismiss.5 Because his amendments did not remedy the defects that rendered his initial claims not 

legally cognizable, the court once again dismissed Nkwuo’s complaint, this time with prejudice.6

Following an entry of judgment in Defendants’ favor, Nkwuo filed a motion seeking 

reconsideration of the court’s ruling.7 The court denied the motion as procedurally improper 

because Nkwuo never sought leave to file the motion and the court had already entered judgment.8 

The court also noted that the motion was substantively deficient because Nkwuo had not 

established any of the required grounds for reconsideration.9 Nkwuo appealed the court’s order on 

the motion for reconsideration to the Ninth Circuit,10 which then referred to this court the 

determination of whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the 

appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.11

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an “appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” In other words, if the district court 

determines an appeal is not taken in good faith, the court may revoke IFP status. Courts in this 

district have determined that “not taken in good faith” means “frivolous.”12 If the appeal as a 

whole is frivolous, IFP status should be revoked.13

 

5 See Docket No. 51. 

6 See Docket No. 58. 

7 See Docket No. 63. 

8 See Docket No. 64. “Before the entry of a judgment . . . any party may make a motion before a 

Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration . . . . No 

party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the 

motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).

9 See Docket No. 64. “The moving party must specifically show . . . one of the following: (1) . . . a 

material difference in fact or law . . . from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought . . . ; or (2) [t]he emergence of new material 

facts or a change of law . . . ; or (3) [a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court . . . .” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

10 See Docket No. 67. 

11 See Docket No. 69. 

12 See Morris v. Lewis, Case No. 4:10-cv-5640-CRB-PR, 2012 WL 1549535, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (quoting Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674-75 (1958)) (finding an 

Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 70 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 70 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 3