Padin v. J.P.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-03802
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARGARET R. DEPASS PADIN, Case No. 20-cv-03802-JD

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

10 J. P., et al., Defendants. 11

12 In Margaret Padin’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral back to this 13 Court to determine whether a prior grant of in forma pauperis status should continue, or whether 14 the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. Dkt. No. 14. 15 An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a motion 16 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Pursuant 17 to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a district-court action who desires to 18 appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” The party must attach an 19 affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs,” 20 (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3) “states the issues that the party intends to present on 21 appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). But even if a party provides proof of indigence, “[a]n appeal 22 may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good 23 faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue 24 that is “non-frivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An 25 issue is “frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 26 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The appeal is frivolous. As the Court has noted multiple times, Dkt. Nos. 6, 9, the 1 complaint falls within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. 2 || Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); Bridgeman v. County of Contra Costa, No. 20-cv-00649-JD, 3 2020 WL 978624, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020). Plaintiff's claims were deficient in other 4 ways as well and her complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, see Dkt. No. 6 at 2-3, but 5 plaintiff failed to amend her complaint or request an extension by the deadline set by the Court. 6 || Dkt. No. 7. The proposed amended complaint she belatedly filed was still about child custody and 7 alleged the same claims that the Court had found insufficient for federal jurisdiction, without any 8 || meaningful additions or modifications. Dkt. No. 9. 9 Plaintiff's action has no arguable basis in fact or law, and her in forma pauperis status is 10 || consequently revoked. The Clerk is requested to forward this order to the Ninth Circuit in Case 11 No. 20-17459. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 25, 2021 14 15 JAMES PONATO = 16 United Pftates District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28