Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY , District Judge . Plaintiff Noe Kim Raquinio, pro se, has appealed this court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 100. This court granted Raquinio's application to proceed in forma pauperis early in this case, and he seeks to continue in that status on appeal. ECF No. 20. On April 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to this court "for the limited purpose of determining
Summary: ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY , District Judge . Plaintiff Noe Kim Raquinio, pro se, has appealed this court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 100. This court granted Raquinio's application to proceed in forma pauperis early in this case, and he seeks to continue in that status on appeal. ECF No. 20. On April 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to this court "for the limited purpose of determining w..
More
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL
SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Noe Kim Raquinio, pro se, has appealed this court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 100. This court granted Raquinio's application to proceed in forma pauperis early in this case, and he seeks to continue in that status on appeal. ECF No. 20. On April 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to this court "for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith." ECF No. 103.
The court determines that Raquinio's appeal is frivolous and, therefore, not taken in good faith. See U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An appeal is "frivolous if it has `no arguable basis in fact or law.'" O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)). As set forth in the court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Raquinio asserted claims of illegal search and seizure and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and these claims arose out of a traffic stop that led to his arrest and conviction for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree in state court. See ECF No. 95. This court determined that Raquinio's claims for damages were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that he failed to state a claim for prospective injunctive relief. See id.1 After judgment was entered, Raquinio filed two more documents: (1) one document that the court deemed to be a motion to alter or amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied, and (2) another document2 that the court deemed to be an amended complaint and took no action on because leave to file an amended complaint was never given. ECF Nos. 97, 98, 99. After carefully considering all of Raquinio's filings in this case, the court concludes that Raquinio's claims have no arguable basis in fact or law.
The court denies Raquinio's in forma pauperis status on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
