Scott v. Yellen
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01519
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Scott v. Yellen, Judge Hamilton revoked Scott’s permission to appeal without paying fees, finding the appeal had no arguable legal or factual basis.
Donnie Scott and his appeal in the Ninth Circuit; the order concerns his permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
What happened
In Scott v. Yellen, Donnie Scott, a state prisoner representing himself, appealed after his civil action was dismissed during initial screening. The appeal concerned his request for an economic impact payment under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
Scott argued that the court should intervene to obtain the payment. The opinion explained that an earlier case did not decide whether incarcerated people were owed such payments, and that the deadline for issuing payments under that law had passed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton revoked Scott’s permission to proceed without paying appeal fees because she found that his action had no arguable basis in fact or law. The clerk was asked to send the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Yellen · No. 4:21-cv-01519
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
Donnie Scott, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil action against a governmental entity. The action was dismissed during screening. Scott appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which returned the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether his permission to proceed without paying court fees should continue and whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.
Scott sought court intervention to obtain an economic impact payment under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and relied on an earlier Northern District of California decision. The opinion states that the earlier decision held that an economic impact payment could not be denied solely because a person was incarcerated, but did not decide whether individual incarcerated people were owed the payment. That decision-making responsibility belonged to the Internal Revenue Service. The opinion also states that the law set December 31, 2020, as the deadline for making or allowing the payments, and that no more funds could be issued after that deadline.
Legal Standard
A person who cannot afford the cost of an appeal may ask to proceed without paying fees. The request must include information showing the person’s inability to pay, entitlement to relief, and the issues intended for appeal. Even if the person is unable to pay, the district court may certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The opinion defines a frivolous appeal as one with no arguable basis in fact or law.
Ruling
The court found that Scott’s action had no arguable basis in fact or law. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore revoked Scott’s permission to proceed without paying fees. The clerk was requested to forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in case number 21-15750.
Disposition and Classification
The order revoked Scott’s in-forma-pauperis status for the appeal. This is a procedural order because it addressed access to fee-free appellate proceedings rather than deciding whether Scott was legally entitled to an economic impact payment on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.