Filed: Apr. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff Sergei Portnoy ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se, filed a Complaint alleging numerous claims against Defendant Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. ("Defendant") stemming from Plaintiff's March 17, 2010, termination as a bus operator. See ECF No. 1. However, because Plaintiff's claims could have been raised in prior litigation against Defendant, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. See ECF N
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff Sergei Portnoy ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se, filed a Complaint alleging numerous claims against Defendant Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. ("Defendant") stemming from Plaintiff's March 17, 2010, termination as a bus operator. See ECF No. 1. However, because Plaintiff's claims could have been raised in prior litigation against Defendant, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. See ECF No..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff Sergei Portnoy ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se, filed a Complaint alleging numerous claims against Defendant Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. ("Defendant") stemming from Plaintiff's March 17, 2010, termination as a bus operator. See ECF No. 1. However, because Plaintiff's claims could have been raised in prior litigation against Defendant, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 43, 56.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 1, 2014. ECF No. 58. On April 9, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal or whether that status should be revoked because the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. ECF No. 60; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous).
This action is not Plaintiff's first attempt to bring claims that could have been raised in prior litigation. See Portnoy v. United States, 2:11-cv-00264-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. 2011), ECF Nos. 19, 23 (dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims on the basis of res judicata because he sued the United States on the same claims in a 2010 case, as well as in previously filed actions in the Eastern District of California), aff'd, No. 12-15174, ECF No. 10 (9th Cir. 2012); Portnoy v. United States, Case No. 2:05-cv-00649-DFL-KJM, ECF Nos. 31-32 (barring one of Plaintiff's claims on the basis of res judicata) aff'd, No. 06-16956, ECF No. 14 (9th Cir. 2007). In light of Plaintiff's awareness of the doctrine of res judicata and his failure to present an "arguable basis in fact or law" to support his position, Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for filing on the docket of Case No. 14-15636.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
