Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00556-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Institution
Defendant
Willie Weaver
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION CONFINEMENT

SHU, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00556-AWI-SMS-P

Appeal No. 06-16513

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND CERTIFYING

APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH (Doc.

8)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 8)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON NINTH

CIRCUIT

Plaintiff Willie Weaver (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May 10, 2006. (Doc. 1.)

Because the complaint in this action set forth the same claims as those set forth in case number 1:06-

CV-00442-AWI-SMS-P filed on April 17, 2006, the Court dismissed this action as duplicative of

case number 1:06-CV-00442-AWI-SMS-P on June 27, 2006. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a notice of

appeal on July 10, 2006, and a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on

August 16, 2006. (Docs. 6, 8.)

Plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis in this action in the district court because this

action is duplicative of another pending action and the Court deemed it in the interest of justice to

dismiss it without requiring plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or file an application to

Case 1:06-cv-00556-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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 The Court takes judicial notice of its docket. 1

2

proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis in this action in

the district court, he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal unless authorized by the

Court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

The Court finds that plaintiff’s appeal of the dismissal of this action is not taken in good

faith. Although the Court has not yet declared plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant or entered a prefiling order against plaintiff, the Court notes that plaintiff has filed one-hundred twenty-four actions

in the Eastern District of California as of September 25, 2006, many of which were filed in

September alone. In many instances, plaintiff filed, and continues to file, multiple actions in one 1

day. A review of the Ninth Circuit’s docket reveals that plaintiff has also filed multiple appeals. 

The claims raised in this action are duplicative of those raised in case number 1:06-CV00442-AWI-SMS-P, and plaintiff’s notice of appeal of the dismissal of this action is devoid of any

stated bases supporting the appeal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(2) and

24(a)(4), the Court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith and plaintiff’s motion seeking

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal shall be denied for that reason. 

Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is best directed to the

Ninth Circuit. However, in light of the fact that plaintiff filed his motion in the district court, this

Court will address it.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable

method of securing and compensating counsel, this Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

most serious and exceptional cases. 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See id.

This action was dismissed as duplicative of another pending case and the Court has found that

Case 1:06-cv-00556-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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 appeal of the dismissal was not taken in good faith. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the

appointment of counsel shall be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, filed August

16, 2006, is DENIED;

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this order shall serve as

notice to plaintiff and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the

finding that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because

the appeal is not taken in good faith; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed August 16, 2006, is DENIED;

and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00556-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 3