(PS) Rigor v. CSUS ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:20-cv-00394-JAM-AC 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER CERTIFYING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AS FRIVOLOUS AND REVOKING 12 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY HER IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SACRAMENTO and DALE CARLSEN, 13 Defendants. 14 15 In February 2020, Rigor filed suit against California State 16 University Sacramento (“CSUS”) and Dale Carlsen for “infringement 17 of ideas of [the CSUS] student body” and discrimination. Compl., 18 ECF No. 1. The allegations in this case mirror those in a suit 19 she filed a year earlier. See Rigor v. California State 20 University of Sacramento, et al., 2:19-cv-00633 KJM AC (“Rigor 21 I”). Both cases stem from events surrounding CSUS’s “Global 22 Entrepreneurship Week 2018.” Rigor I at ECF No. 12 at 5; Compl. 23 at 7. In Rigor I, the magistrate judge granted Rigor leave to 24 proceed IFP in and screened her complaint. The Court identified 25 deficiencies in Rigor’s allegations and, twice, granted her leave 26 to amend. Rigor I at ECF Nos. 3 and 6. After Rigor failed to 27 timely file a second amended complaint, the Court dismissed her 28 case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Rigor I at ECF 1 Nos. 10, 11. 2 Rigor filed this suit, Rigor II, shortly after. The Court, 3 again, found the complaint failed to state any cognizable claims. 4 ECF Nos. 3, 5. Concluding Rigor could not cure these 5 deficiencies, the Court dismissed her suit with prejudice. Id. 6 Rigor appealed. ECF No. 7. Now tasked with the question of 7 whether Rigor may retain her in forma pauperis status for her 8 appeal, ECF No. 10, the Court finds she may not. 9 10 I. OPINION 11 An appellant may not proceed with her appeal in forma 12 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that the appeal 13 is frivolous or not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 14 see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th 15 Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an 16 arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 17 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Notably, “the failure-to-state-a-claim 18 standard of Rule 12(b)(6) and the frivolousness standard . . . 19 were devised to serve distinctive goals.” Id. at 326. So, 20 “while the overlap between these two standards is considerable, 21 it does not follow that a complaint which falls afoul of the 22 former standard will invariably fall afoul of the latter.” Id. 23 Here, however, the Court finds the reasons that counseled 24 dismissal of Rigor’s claims likewise compel the finding that her 25 claims are frivolous. See March 18, 2020 Findings and 26 Recommendations at 3-6. Rigor’s complaint does not, and cannot, 27 set forth allegations that would give rise to cognizable 28 discrimination or copyright infringement claims. Her WwOAODD ST VEAIVE PANY MYVUULDIOTIL La VVerVvorey rayet vviiv 1 discrimination claim purports to allege discrimination on behalf 2 of other, unnamed, CSUS students. Compl. at 5. And her 3 copyright infringement claim seeks redress for an injury that 4 | copyright law does not cover. Id.; see also 17 U.S.C. § 102 (b) 5 (“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of 6 authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method 7 of operation, concept, principle, or discovery.”) Because 8 Rigor’s claims “lack[] even an arguable basis in law,” Neitzke, 9 490 U.S. at 328, the Court certifies them as frivolous. 10 11 Il. ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court CERTIFIES Rigor’s 13 claims as frivolous and REVOKES Rigor’s in forma pauperis status. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: June 8, 2020 16 ke Me 17 teiren staves odermacr 7008 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28