Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04295/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04295-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darmonica Alexander
Plaintiff
Sonic Automotive
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARMONICA ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Case No. C-03-4295 JCS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND

CERTIFYING THAT APPEAL IS NOT

TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH [Docket No. 27]

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on September 23, 2003 and sought leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 15,

2003. [Docket No. 5] Subsequently, Defendant brought a motion to compel arbitration, which the

Court granted. Defendant prevailed in the arbitration and Plaintiff brought a Motion to Reopen

Case, asking that the Court vacate the arbitration award. [Docket No. 17] The Court denied the

Motion to Reopen Case. Plaintiff then filed another motion, asking that the Court reconsider its

denial of the Motion to Reopen Case. [Docket No. 23]. The Court construed that motion as a

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion for Leave”). The Court denied the

Motion for Leave. [Docket No. 24]. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal, on May 17, 2006. On

May 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Second In Forma Pauperis

Motion”). [Docket No. 27]

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party to a district court action who

seeks to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion with the district court unless the party was

already permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). In that

Case 3:03-cv-04295-JCS Document 28 Filed 09/15/06 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

case, the party may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization unless the

district court certifies – before or after the notice of appeal is filed – that the appeal is not taken in

good faith. Id. Such certification must include a written statement of reasons by the district court. 

Id.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s November 4, 2005 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to

Reopen Case (attached), the court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is not in good faith because no issue is

presented which is not plainly frivolous. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674-675 (1958).

Accordingly, the Second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2006

____________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04295-JCS Document 28 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2