(PC) Van Huisen v. Clinton Admin. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-1596 DJC KJN P 11 Plaintiff, (Ninth Circuit No. 24-0401) 12 v. 13 CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, et al., ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on referral from the United States Court of 17 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 46.) The Ninth Circuit referred this matter 18 back to the Court to determine if in forma pauperis status should continue for 19 Plaintiff’s appeal of this Court’s order and judgment dismissing his amended 20 complaint without leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) The Court finds Plaintiff's 21 appeal to be frivolous and therefore orders his in forma pauperis status revoked. 22 Plaintiff was originally granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 23 16, 2023, in the initial screening order. (ECF No. 11.) The Magistrate Judge found 24 Plaintiff’s original complaint against defendants Clinton Administration, William 25 Clinton, Volkswagen, Inc. and Ed Corneilius, a Santa Clara Volkswagen Dealership 26 owner, to be incomprehensible, included no specific charging allegations as to each 27 defendant, and failed to identify how any named defendant violated plaintiff’s federal 28 statutory or constitutional rights. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s claims 1 | were legally frivolous but granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. 2 | (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension of time to amend, 3 | and his motion to reconsider the screening order was denied (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff 4 | failed to file an amended complaint, and on December 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge 5 || recommended that the action be dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF No. 36.) 6 | On January 16, 2024, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations, 7 | and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) 8 On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an appeal, and the issues he identified on 9 | appeal remained incomprehensible. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) 10 The Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to this Court “for the limited purpose 11 | of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or 12 | whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 915(a)(3). 13 | (ECF No. 46.) Here, Plaintiff claims his issues on appeal are: “Despotism, protecting 14 | an incumbent, lost leader liability, jeopardy, tyranny and election contest 2024... □□ 15 | (ECF No. 43 at 2.) Because Plaintiff's claims do not have an “arguable basis either in 16 | law or fact,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith within 17 | the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and his in forma pauperis status is revoked. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith; 20 2. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked; and 21 3. The Clerk of the Court shall notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24- 22 | 0401. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: _ February 2, 2024 “Darel A CoDbnetto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28