Opinion
15-cv-05277-RMI
09-09-2021
BRIAN CHAVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Re: Dkt. No. 121
ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge
Now pending before the court is an application filed by Mr. Howard Herships seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis (dkt. 121). Mr. Herships recently moved to intervene, pro se, in this settled class action case (dkt. 117). He also filed a Motion for Civil Contempt (dkt. 116) against Defendant County of Santa Clara. The court denied the motions because he is currently represented by class counsel in this case, and also due to the fact that the contentions underling his Motion to Intervene (dkt. 117) are fully embodied in a separate lawsuit that he has filed, and that is currently pending, before another Judge of this court. See Herships v. Smith et al., No. 3:20-cv-07208-JD, Amend. Compl. (dkt. 14) at 3-4, 13, 14, 31, 33. For the reasons stated in the Order denying Mr. Herships leave to intervene in this case (dkt. 119), the court now finds that this appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”). Accordingly, Mr. Herships' Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. If he so chooses, Mr. Herships may seek pauper status directly from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.