Carter v. Wells Fargo & Company
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-07406
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carter v. Wells Fargo & Company, Judge Donato revoked Carter’s fee-waiver status after finding his appeal frivolous.
Darryl Chadwich Carter’s ability to pursue his pending appeal without paying court fees was affected. The Ninth Circuit was to receive the order; the opinion does not state any additional effect on Wells Fargo & Company or the other defendants.
What happened
In Carter v. Wells Fargo & Company, Darryl Chadwich Carter appealed after the case was dismissed without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit referred the matter to the district court to decide whether Carter’s permission to appeal without paying fees should continue.
Judge Donato explained that this permission is unavailable when an appeal is not brought in good faith. The court found that Carter had not amended his complaint to address identified problems, despite an opportunity to do so, and that his notice of appeal did not address those problems. Instead, it made implausible allegations against the court that were unrelated to his consumer-fraud claims.
Judge Donato ruled that the appeal was frivolous and revoked Carter’s permission to proceed without paying fees. The clerk was directed to send the order to the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Wells Fargo & Company · No. 3:24-cv-07406
- James Donato
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The Ninth Circuit referred a limited question to the district court in Carter’s pending appeal: whether his previously granted in forma pauperis status should continue, or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith. In forma pauperis status allows a person who cannot afford court fees and costs to proceed without paying them.
The district court had previously granted Carter that status while screening his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Magistrate Judge Ryu dismissed the complaint with leave to amend by December 10, 2024, so Carter could address deficiencies identified in the screening order. The district court later adopted a report and recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice, stating that Carter had not amended the complaint despite the opportunity, had repeatedly ignored court orders and deadlines, and had filed materials that were not relevant to the report and recommendation.
Court’s reasoning
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a person seeking to appeal without paying fees must show inability to pay, claim an entitlement to relief, and identify the issues intended for appeal. Even when indigence is shown, the trial court may certify that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court explained that good faith requires presenting at least one non-frivolous issue, while an issue is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law.
The court found that Carter’s appeal was frivolous. His latest notice of appeal did not address the complaint’s identified deficiencies, including the absence of allegations plausibly stating a claim or establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the notice made allegations that the court was involved in a criminal cover-up and political collusion. The court found those allegations plainly implausible and unrelated to the consumer-fraud claims in the complaint.
Ruling
Judge James Donato revoked Carter’s in forma pauperis status because Carter had not presented a non-frivolous claim despite ample opportunity to do so. The clerk was requested to forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 25-699. This order addressed Carter’s fee-waiver status and the frivolousness of the appeal; it did not decide the underlying consumer-fraud claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.