Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

 Docket No. 386.

2

 Docket No. 378.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WASHBURN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 FAGAN ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C03-0869 MJJ

CLARIFICATION OF DISTRICT

COURT’S CERTIFICATION THAT

APPEAL IS NOT FRIVOLOUS AND

DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

FOR ORDER LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S

APPEAL

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s (“Defendant”) Request for

Clarification1

 of this Court’s Order, filed June 29, 2007, granting Plaintiff's Administrative Request

for certification that his appeal is not frivolous and ordering that transcripts be prepared at

Government expense.2

 Defendant also requests an order clarifying that Plaintiff’s appeal be limited

to those issues identified in the June 29, 2007 Order. James Washburn (“Plaintiff”) opposes the

request. The Court CLARIFIES the Order as follows and DENIES Defendant’s request for a new

order limiting the scope of Plaintiff’s appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2003, the clerk assigned the case of Washburn v. Fagan to this Court for all

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 389 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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 3

 Plaintiff’s did not appeal this Court’s September 9, 2006, denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis but

rather filed a new motion before the Ninth Circuit requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

2

further proceedings. After a jury trial, on July 17, 2006, this Court signed the judgment in favor of

defendants in the case of Washburn v. Fagan, terminating the civil case. On August 7, 2006,

Appellant filed a notice of appeal. 

On August 11, 2006, Appellant moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, to which

Appellee filed objections on September 1, 2006. On September 9, 2006, this Court denied

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 2, 2006, Appellant filed a transcript

request for excerpts of the trial record with the court reporter. On October 4, 2006, Appellee filed an

administrative motion in this Court requesting an order requiring designation of the entire transcript

for appeal at Appellant’s expense. Appellant responded by arguing that the additional parts of the

transcript that Appellee requested were unnecessary and that its request was frivolous. On

December 5, 2006, this Court ordered Appellant to designate the entire trial transcript for appeal at

Appellant’s expense. On December 21, 2006, the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis.3

 On May 10, 2007, the Ninth Circuit denied Appellant’s Motion for

production of transcripts at government expense without prejudice to renewal following presentation

of the motion to the district court. 

 In response to the Ninth Circuit’s invitation to present the motion for production of

transcripts at government expense, appellant filed an Administrative Request for Certification that

the Appeal Is Not Frivolous and for an Order that Transcripts Be Prepared at Government Expense. 

On June 29, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying that Plaintiff’s appeal is not frivolous and

ordering that transcripts be prepared at government expense. The order reads, in its entirety:

Before the Court is James Washburn’s (“Appellant”) Administrative Request for

Certification that Appeal Is Not Frivolous and Order that Transcripts Be Prepared at

Government Expense. The City and County of San Francisco (“Appellee”) opposes the

motion. Appellant is among those permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and based

upon the record before the Court his appeal presents a substantial question as to probable

cause and Monell claims. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff/Appellant’s request

for certification that his appeal is not frivolous and ORDERS that transcripts be

prepared at Government expense.

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 389 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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 4

 This rule allows Defendant to challenge any of Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal, including the ones the Court

mentioned in its certification that the appeal is not frivolous.

3

Defendant now requests that the Court clarify that order and issue an order clarifying that the plaintiff’s

appeal “be limited to those issues identified . . . as not being frivolous, (i.e., ‘probable cause and Monell

claims’), and that appeal based on any other unrelated issue would be frivolous.” (Def.’s Req. for

Clarification, p. 2.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The United States “shall” pay for transcripts for those permitted to appeal in forma pauperis if

the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal “is not frivolous (but presents a substantial

question).” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

The Court should decide whether a “substantial question” exists on purely objective grounds.

Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F.Supp. 903, 905 (D.C.Md. 1959). A substantial question exists where

the issue before the court of appeals “is reasonably debatable.” Id. In case of doubt as to the merits, the

court should resolve the issue of providing a transcript at government expense in favor of the appellant.

Id. at 906.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s request for certification that his appeal was not frivolous placed the Court in the

position of judging the substantiality of Plaintiff’s challenges to its own decisions in proceedings before

it. The Court issued its certification that Plaintiff’s appeal is not frivolous solely for determining

whether Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for receipt of transcripts at government expense. 

“The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district

courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Were the Court now purport to limit the scope of

Plaintiff’s appeal, as Defendant requests, it would serve as a denial of Plaintiff’s appeal. Such a denial

would improperly encroach on the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s appeal. 

If Defendant believes that any of Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal are frivolous, he is not without

recourse. “If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed

motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single

or double costs to the appellee.”4

 Fed. R. App. P. 38. In addition, the court of appeals may award costs

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 389 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

to a prevailing party in an appeal even without a determination that the appeal was frivolous. See 28

U.S.C. § 1912. Meanwhile, Defendant cites no rule, statute or case law granting this Court the authority

to limit Plaintiff’s appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for an order limiting

Plaintiff’s appeal and for an order finding that an appeal based on any other unrelated issue would be

frivolous. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July_____, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 389 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 4