Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Nero

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, No. CV-25-00151-TUC-JCH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Chris Nero, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 15, 2025, pro se Defendant/Appellant Chris Nero filed a Notice of Appeal 16 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 10) (“Appeal”). Before the Court is 17 Defendant’s Motion and Affidavit for Permission to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on appeal 18 (Doc. 11) (“Application”). 19 I. Background 20 On April 2, 2025, Defendant removed eviction proceedings from state court to the 21 District of Arizona. See Doc. 1. On April 9, 2025, the Court remanded the case for lack of 22 federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 8. Defendant appeals the Court’s Letter of Remand to 23 Pima County Superior Court (Doc. 9), issued by the Clerk of Court. See Doc. 10 at 1. 24 II. Discussion 25 A. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26 Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party who wishes to appeal a 27 district court order in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court and 28 attach an affidavit that (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees 1 and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. 2 3 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Defendant filed Form 4 and states that he has no income, assets, 4 or financial support and that he is financially unable to pay filing fees for the appeal. 5 Doc. 11. Defendant states he holds no personal property because all fiduciary property is 6 held in trust. Id. at 9. Defendant invokes his right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 7 “as a Private Attorney General and Executor acting in constitutional and public interest 8 capacity.” Id. Defendant’s Appeal cites only to the Clerk of Court’s Letter of Remand as 9 the basis for his appeal. See Doc. 10. But Defendant’s Application states the appeal is based 10 on dismissal of his crossclaim and for “commercial dishonor and judicial abandonment.” 11 Doc. 11 at 9. 12 B. Frivolous Claims 13 “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing 14 that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in good faith 15 if it seeks review of any issue that is non-frivolous. Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 16 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). A “good faith” appeal must seek review of at least one “non- 17 frivolous” issue or claim. Id. An issue is “frivolous” where it “lacks an arguable basis either 18 in law or in fact.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Legally frivolous claims 19 are those “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” and factually frivolous claims 20 are those premised on “clearly baseless” factual contentions. Id. at 327–28. 21 The Court remanded Defendant’s case to state court because this Court lacked 22 subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s original complaint. Doc. 8. Defendant’s attempts 23 to conjure federal jurisdiction by implicating federal law in his counterclaims or defenses 24 are meritless. Id. at 2. 25 As to whether Defendant’s appeal is taken in good faith, the Court notes that 26 Defendant’s arguments and defenses are replete with “sovereign citizen” ideology—an 27 “utterly meritless” legal theory that has been “consistently and thoroughly rejected by 28 every branch of the government for decades.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 1] 937 n.3 Oth Cir. 1986); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 2|| 83, 89 (1998) (holding federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or 4|| otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”). Defendant 5 || does not seek review of at least one non-frivolous claim or issue. Thus, the Court will deny || Defendant’s Motion and certify that the proposed appeal is not taken in good faith under 7\| 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 8 Il. ORDER 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion and Affidavit for Permission to 11 || Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 11). Defendant may seek leave to proceed in forma 12 || pauperis on appeal by filing such a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within 13 || 30 days of the date of this Order. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Any such motion must include (1) a copy of this Order and (2) the affidavit required by Federal Rule of Appellate || Procedure 24(a)(1). 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED certifying that Defendant’s Appeal (Doc. 10) is not 17 || taken in good faith. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to immediately notify || Defendant and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this Order, pursuant to Fed. R. 20 || App. P. 24(a)(4). 21 Dated this 24th day of April, 2025. 22 23 f fy . | HK Aa— 5 / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 26 27 28

-3-