Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02989-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Heyward
Plaintiff
United States Government
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO HEYWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02989-MMC 

ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT 

TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; REVOKING

IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS; 

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court is the Referral Notice issued to this Court by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referring the above-titled matter for the limited 

purpose of determining whether the in forma pauperis status of plaintiff-appellant Marco 

Heyward (“Heyward”) should continue or be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 

(providing “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 

writing that it is not taken in good faith”); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 

(1962) (holding “‘good faith’ . . . must be judged by an objective standard”; noting “good 

faith” is demonstrated when appellant seeks review of “any issue not frivolous”). Having 

reviewed the file and considered the matter, the Court rules as follows. 

Heyward appeals the order, filed August 9, 2019, by which the Court adopted 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s Report and Recommendation (“Report and 

Recommendation”) in its entirety and, consequently, dismissed Heyward’s complaint. 

As set forth in detail in the above-referenced Report and Recommendation, the 

Court “does not have jurisdiction to review, reconsider, or modify the BVA’s [Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals] decision regarding Mr. Heyward’s service connection claims” (see

Report and Recommendation at 4:19-20), and Heyward’s claim for “gross negligence and 

Case 3:19-cv-02989-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/04/19 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

medical malpractice” (see Compl. at 2), brought pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act 

(“FTCA”) (see id. at 3), is “barred by the applicable statute of limitations” (see Report and 

Recommendation at 6:20). In his Notice of Appeals, Heyward contends his claim under 

the FTCA is timely because the BVA issued a “decision dated March 18, 2019.” (See

Notice of Appeals at 1.) Heyward’s argument is, however, unavailing, as the decision 

pertained solely to Heyward’s service connection claims. (See Compl., Attach. A.)

Under such circumstances, Heyward’s appeal of the above-referenced order lacks

an arguable basis in law or fact, and, consequently, does not seek review of a nonfrivolous issue. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding appeal is 

“frivolous” where “none of the legal points are arguable on the merits” (alterations 

omitted)). 

Accordingly, Heyward’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02989-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2