Le v. Chhabria

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02803
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HELEN LE, Case No. 23-cv-02803-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 9 v. FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

10 VINCE CHHABRIA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 In Helen Le’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral back to this Court 14 to determine whether a prior grant of in forma pauperis status should continue, or whether the 15 appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. Dkt. No. 28. 16 An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a motion 17 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Pursuant 18 to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a district-court action who desires to 19 appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The 20 party must attach an affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party’s inability to pay or to give 21 security for fees and costs,” (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3) “states the issues that 22 the party intends to present on appeal.” Id. But even if a party provides proof of indigence, “[a]n 23 appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in 24 good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any 25 issue that is “non-frivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 An issue is “frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 27 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 unintelligible. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 25. As far as the Court can determine, Le sued two judges in 2 || this District for dismissing cases she filed. See Dkt. Nos. 1,5. A magistrate judge recommended 3 dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because 4 || judicial immunity bars suit against judges based on their judicial acts. Dkt. No. 5. This 5 determination was sound, and the Court adopted the recommendation and ordered dismissal. Dkt. 6 || No. 15. Nothing in the record even remotely suggests that the judges “acted in the clear absence 7 of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citation and quotation 8 marks omitted). Absent such an extraordinary showing, judicial immunity applies. /d. 9 Consequently, the appeal has no arguable basis in fact or law. 10 Le’s in forma pauperis status is revoked. The Clerk is requested to forward this order to 11 the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 23-16143. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: September 6, 2023 14 15 JAMES PONATO = 16 Unitedfftates District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28