Adesanya v. United States

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01379

ORDER REVOKING Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status in response to {{39}} USCA Referral. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/6/2015. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ADEMOLA MICHAEL ADESANYA, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01379-KAW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS STATUS 9 UNITED STATES, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 10 Defendants. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On March 25, 2015, pro se plaintiff Ademola Adesanya, a Nigerian citizen and resident, 14 commenced this action against the United States, alleging that the provision in 8 U.S.C. § 15 1229a(b)(7) requiring that he wait ten years before obtaining relief from his removal from the 16 United States violated his constitutional rights. 17 On May 21, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint with leave to amend on 18 the grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing to litigate his case. (Dkt. No. 20.) On June 16, 2015, 19 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, in which he added a "TORTS" cause of action against 20 both the United States and Kern County. 21 On October 14, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint without 22 leave to amend and denied his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 35 23 at 5.) 24 On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal order and denial of the motion for 25 leave to file a second amended complaint to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 19, 26 2015, the Ninth Circuit referred the case back to this Court for the limited purpose of determining 27 whether Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal, or whether the appeal 28 is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See Referral Notice, Adesanya v. United States, No. 12-17064 1 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2015), ECF No. 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines, 2 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is appropriate where 3 district court finds the appeal to be frivolous)). 4 The Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint without leave to amend on the 5 grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ten year ban because more than ten years 6 had passed since Plaintiff's deportation, such that he was no longer aggrieved by the statute. (Dkt. 7 No. 35 at 5.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's generalized torts claims as time-barred. Id. at 5- 8 6. Furthermore, the Court noted that this action appeared to be duplicative of Plaintiff's pending 9 appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 6; See Unopposed Motion to take Judicial Notice of New 10 appeal and related case, Adesanya v. Lynch, No. 14-71935 (9th Cir. May 27, 2015), ECF No. 25. 11 Since any amendment would be futile, the Court dismissed the operative complaint without leave 12 to amend, denied the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and entered judgment. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff has repeatedly shown that his complaint is fatally defective, even after he was 14 permitted to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 20.) The court now certifies that the appeal is 15 frivolous and REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal in this action. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: November 6, 2015 __________________________________ 18 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2