Padin v. J.P.
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-03802
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Padin v. J.P., Judge Donato revoked Margaret Padin’s status allowing her to appeal without paying costs after finding the appeal frivolous and unsupported in fact or law.
Margaret R. Depass Padin’s pending appeal was affected: the court revoked her permission to proceed without paying court costs and sent the order to the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
In Padin v. J.P., the Ninth Circuit asked the district court to reconsider Margaret Padin’s permission to pursue her appeal without paying court costs. The referral was limited to whether that permission should continue or whether the appeal was frivolous or brought in bad faith.
Judge Donato found the appeal frivolous. He said Padin’s complaint concerned child custody and therefore fell within a rule limiting federal courts’ authority over domestic-relations matters. He also noted that she did not timely amend her complaint or request more time, and that her later proposed amended complaint made no meaningful changes.
Judge Donato revoked Padin’s status allowing her to appeal without paying costs and directed the Clerk to send the order to the Ninth Circuit. The order did not decide the underlying child-custody claims.
The detailed version
- Padin v. J.P. · No. 3:20-cv-03802
- James Donato
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
The Ninth Circuit referred a limited issue back to the district court in Padin’s pending appeal: whether her previously granted permission to proceed without paying court costs should continue, or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.
This permission is called in forma pauperis status. Under the rules and statute cited by the court, a party seeking to appeal without paying fees must show inability to pay, claim a right to relief, and identify the issues to be raised. Even when a party is unable to pay, the court may deny or revoke that status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is in good faith when it raises at least one non-frivolous issue, and that an issue is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Padin’s appeal was frivolous. It relied on its earlier rulings that her complaint concerned child custody and fell within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction, a limitation on federal courts’ authority over certain family-law disputes.
The court also noted that Padin’s claims had other deficiencies. It had dismissed her complaint with leave to amend, but she did not amend the complaint or request an extension by the deadline. Her later proposed amended complaint still concerned child custody and repeated the claims that the court had already found insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction, without meaningful additions or changes.
Disposition
The court found that Padin’s action had no arguable basis in fact or law and revoked her in forma pauperis status. It requested that the Clerk forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 20-17459. Judge Donato did not rule on the merits of the underlying child-custody claims in this order; the ruling concerned Padin’s ability to pursue the appeal without paying court costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.