Louis L. Ligon III v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 LOUIS L. LIGON III, Case No. 25-cv-03959-RMI

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO 10 v. APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

11 META PLATFORMS INC., Re: Dkt. No. 68 12 Defendant.

13 14 Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal (dkt. 69) and a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma 15 Pauperis (dkt. 68). No prior motions to proceed in forma pauperis have been filed in this action. 16 For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. 17 A party to a district court action seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion to 18 that effect with the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The motion must demonstrate that the 19 applicant cannot pay court costs and still be able to afford the necessities of life for themselves and 20 their dependents. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In addition, 21 an appeal cannot be made in forma pauperis if the district court certifies that the appeal is in bad 22 faith. Kelly v. Johnston, 23 F. Supp. 212, 212–13 (N.D. Cal.), aff’d, 99 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1938). 23 “Bad faith” means the appeal is frivolous because it has no basis in law. Carter v. USDA, No. 19- 24 CV-03096-NC, 2020 WL 14025995, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 25 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). If any portion of the appeal is nonfrivolous, the entire appeal must be 26 allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if the other requirements are met. Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 27 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). If the district court denies the motion but does not certify 1 pauperis with the court of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 2 Plaintiff did not submit the correct form or a proper affidavit and did not include the issues 3 he intends to appeal in his Motion as required by the Rules. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, 4 reviewing the information submitted with the Motion along with the separately filed Notice of 5 Appeal, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden under the Federal Rules to show that 6 he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. First, it is not clear from the submission that he cannot 7 afford the “necessities of life” if he pays the filing fee, and it is not clear what has changed his 8 ability to pay court fees since the beginning of this lawsuit. 9 Second, Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal states that he intends to appeal “the final judgment of 10 dismissal and all rulings adverse to Plaintiff contained in the April 28, 2026 Order, including but 11 not limited to the application of Section 230(c)(1), the determination regarding state action, the 12 dismissal of each of the eight causes of action, and the partial denial of leave to amend.” (Dkt. 69.) 13 It is difficult to determine from this statement whether Plaintiff intends to present any non- 14 frivolous argument upon appeal. At least some of these arguments, if not most of them, are 15 frivolous, especially given that the appeal will proceed with only the facts as alleged in the FAC. 16 For example, it is settled law that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits only racial discrimination in the 17 making and enforcement of contracts, see Shah v. Mt. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 642 F.2d 268, 272 18 (9th Cir. 1981), and Plaintiff alleged zero facts suggesting that Defendant discriminated against 19 him based on his race or suggesting that he could amend to cure this deficiency. An appeal of this 20 claim is frivolous. Many of the other issues are also frivolous, particularly given that no 21 substantive arguments on appeal have been identified and many of Plaintiff’s arguments to this 22 court were incorrect as a matter of law. For these reasons,1 Plaintiff has not met his burden and his 23 24 1 Additionally, Plaintiff failed to follow proper procedure. Thirty minutes before this court entered judgment in this case, Plaintiff filed a request for this court to enter judgment based on Plaintiff’s own failure to amend 25 by the deadline set in the Order. Three minutes before the court entered judgment, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. The court then entered judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to file anything in response to the April 26 Order and without seeing the filings made in the thirty minutes before the judgment was filed. Plaintiff should have filed a written notice of intent not to file an amended complaint with this court; his statement in the 27 Notice of Appeal that the Order on the motion to dismiss “became the final judgment dismissing this action in its entirety upon the expiration of the thirty-day period to file an amended complaint” is contrary to ] Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. However, some of the issues appealed are not 2 || frivolous,” so the court does not certify that the appeal is made in bad faith, and Plaintiff may 3 || reapply to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for in forma pauperis status. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 26, 2026 6 7 RQBERT M. ILLMAN 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11

2B

15 16

Z 18 19 20 because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be obtained.’’). However, because his Notice of Appeal is defective, this court still had jurisdiction to enter final 21 judgment and the Notice of Appeal may be construed by the court of appeals as directed towards the appealable order instead of the non-appealable order. See Ruby v. Sec’y of U. S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388-89 22 (9th Cir. 1966). Moreover, Plaintiffs failure to use the correct filing event meant that the appeal notice was not processed until he refiled under the correct event a few days later. (Dkt. 71.) Plaintiff's failure to proceed 23 properly with his appeal is thus harmless. 24 > For a few examples, there is disagreement among district courts in this circuit as to whether Section 230(c)(1) applies to constitutional claims, compare Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 25 3d 1107, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Ninth Circuit has not interpreted Section 230 to grant immunity for causes of action alleging constitutional violations”), with Lewis v. Google LLC, 461 F. Supp. 3d 938, 955 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (barring First Amendment claim under Section 230(c)(1)), aff'd on other grounds, 851 F. App’x 723 (9th Cir. 2021); there is similar disagreement as to when Section 230(c)(1) bars contract claims, 27 (Order, Dkt. 66, at 16 n.6); and the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on whether political groups are protected classes under Section 1985(3), (Order, Dkt. 66, at 25 n.11). Appealing these issues is not frivolous. Whether the court of appeals will reach these issues upon this appeal is not clear, but also not apparently relevant to 28 . whether the appeal may be considered to be in good faith.