Foley v. Pacchiega

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 MICHAEL FOLEY, Case No. 2:15-CV-2047 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 FERNANDO PACCHIEGA, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 The Ninth Circuit referred this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of 14 determining whether pro se plaintiff Michael Foley’s in forma pauperis status should 15 continue for his appeal (Ninth Circuit Case No. 22-15629) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16 1951(a)(3), or whether it should be revoked in the event the appeal is frivolous or taken in 17 bad faith. Consistent with the following, the district court certifies that Foley’s appeal is 18 frivolous and recommends revocation of his in forma pauperis status. 19 As stated in multiple orders (ECF Nos. 52; 58), Foley’s primary contention that he 20 was arrested based on an allegedly invalid warrant is refuted by the record. The record 21 clearly shows that a Nevada family state court hearing master’s recommended bench warrant 22 converts to an enforceable order/judgment if no objections are filed within 10 days. (ECF 23 No. 47-1 at 4). 24 Foley does not deny that he failed to file a timely objection. (ECF No. 58 at 3:11– 25 18). Therefore, his civil rights claims related to this “false” arrest manifestly fail, and the 26 court finds Foley’s appeal frivolous. See Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 27 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that district courts have the power to deny leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the court certifies that the appeal is frivolous as a whole). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at cmecf_ca9central@ca9.uscourts.gov. 4 DATED July 1, 2022. 5 a Lias C. Atala 6 UN?TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-