Williams v. Stover ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHKEEM DESHAVIER WILLIAMS, No. 1:19-cv-00856-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER FINDING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH 14 ROBERT H. STOVER, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Ahkeem Deshavier Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 22, 2019, the 19 court dismissed the action, concluding that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 20 No. 9.) On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 11.) On November 6, 21 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to this court for 22 a determination, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), whether plaintiff’s appeal is 23 frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Doc. No. 14). 24 An appeal is taken in good faith if the appellant seeks review of any issue that is not 25 frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550–51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Coppedge v. United 26 States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (if at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, the appeal must proceed in forma pauperis 28 as a whole). A frivolous action is one “lacking [an] arguable basis in law or in fact.” Franklin v. 1 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a 2 court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” 3 Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). 4 The court dismissed this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. The 5 gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that police officers or sheriffs coordinated with prosecutors 6 and his public defenders to frame him in an underlying state court criminal proceeding. The court 7 dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because: (1) he cannot state a cognizable claim against his public 8 defenders, as they were not acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes, see Miranda v. 9 Clark County of Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding dismissal of complaint on 10 basis that public defender was not acting on behalf of county for purposes of § 1983 in 11 representing plaintiff’s interests); and (2) he cannot state a cognizable claim against the 12 prosecutors because prosecutors are immune from liability under § 1983 when they are 13 functioning in their official capacities, see Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 14 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally accorded to judges and prosecutors 15 functioning in their official capacities”). (Doc. No. 9 at 1; see also Doc. No. 6.) Because 16 plaintiff’s claims were precluded as a matter of law, the court dismissed the action with 17 prejudice.1 18 Plaintiff’s notice of appeal does not meaningfully dispute that he is precluded from 19 asserting his claims as a matter of law. Instead, plaintiff argues only that this court “is in coluison 20 [sic] and is using a double standard applying the laws.” (Doc. No. 11 at 1.) The undersigned, 21 however, can discern no basis for appeal in this case other than plaintiff’s mere disagreement with 22 the court’s ruling, which does not suffice to demonstrate good faith or merit. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 1 Plaintiff’s complaint also named as a defendant a Kings County sheriff, but alleged no facts nor 27 did plaintiff assert any claims against this individual. Accordingly, this defendant was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to allege an actual connection or link between the action of this defendant 28 and the alleged deprivations. 1 Accordingly: 2 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), the court finds that 3 the appeal is not taken in good faith; and 4 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4)(B), the Clerk of the 5 Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiff and the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6 the Ninth Circuit. 7 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ November 20, 2019 Sea 1" S098 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28