Dunn v. Santa Cruz County

Background

Gregory Edwin Dunn had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees. The district court screened and dismissed his complaint and first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After a second screening, the action was dismissed with prejudice. Dunn then filed a notice of appeal.

The Ninth Circuit returned the case to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether Dunn’s fee-waiver status should continue for the appeal or whether the appeal was frivolous or not brought in good faith.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a person may not proceed without paying appellate fees if the trial court certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The opinion explains that an appeal is taken in good faith when it raises at least one non-frivolous issue or claim.

The district court relied on its earlier conclusion that Dunn’s first amended complaint alleged disjointed facts that failed to state a viable claim against Santa Cruz County and that further amendment would not cure the defects. The court concluded that Dunn’s appeal was frivolous and therefore was not taken in good faith.

The court revoked Dunn’s permission to proceed without paying fees under § 1915(a)(3). It directed the Clerk to notify Dunn and the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was without prejudice to Dunn filing an application with the Ninth Circuit for permission to proceed without paying fees.