From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Katumbusi v. Gary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 15, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-01534-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-01534-JAM-AC

04-15-2015

FATIMA KATUMBUSI, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW J. GARY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On March 3, 2015, this court dismissed plaintiff's lawsuit without leave to amend, and entered judgment. ECF Nos. 9 & 10. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 11, and the Ninth Circuit has referred the matter back 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 or taken in bad faith." ECF No. 14 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Hooker v. American 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)).

Plaintiff's complaint is premised on violations of her constitutional rights stemming from a 2004-05 child custody dispute in the Sacramento Superior Court, after which her children were removed from her custody. ECF No. 1 at 3-7; ECF No. 4 at 8-24. Plaintiff argues that the Sacramento Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear her case, and therefore asks the court to void the proceedings. ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff also requests compensatory relief for her children's emotional distress. Id. at 7-8. The court dismissed plaintiff's claims as time barred by § 1983's two-year statute of limitations. ECF Nos. 6 & 9; see also Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1). This court is aware of no good-faith, non-frivolous basis for an appeal of this ruling, as the complaint only includes allegations regarding conduct occurring outside of § 1983's statute of limitations. No other basis for relief is alleged.

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the court certifies that plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. See Tate v. United States, 13 F. App'x 726, 726 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff's complaint sua sponte because it was apparent on the face of it that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations) Dated: April 15, 2015.

/s/_________

JOHN A. MENDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Katumbusi v. Gary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 15, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-01534-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015)
Case details for

Katumbusi v. Gary

Case Details

Full title:FATIMA KATUMBUSI, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW J. GARY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 15, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-01534-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015)