Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 22, 2022

Hanson v. Dowling

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:22-cv-01084
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hanson v. Dowling, Judge Breyer revoked Christina Hanson's fee-waiver status for her frivolous appeal.

Who this affects

Christina Hanson, whose status allowing her to appeal without paying court fees was revoked.

What happened

In Hanson v. Dowling, Christina Hanson, representing herself, alleged that the defendants implanted a “Stargate Remote Viewing Device” in her right eye. The court had previously dismissed her case after finding that her claims lacked minimum legal viability.

Hanson appealed, and the Ninth Circuit asked the district court to decide whether she could continue appealing without paying filing fees or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith. The district court found that the appeal was frivolous and revoked her fee-waiver status on appeal.

Judge Charles R. Breyer issued the July 22, 2022 order. This order addressed only Hanson's fee-waiver status on appeal; the opinion does not decide the appeal itself.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hanson v. Dowling · No. 3:22-cv-01084
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
July 22, 2022

Background

Christina J. Hanson, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that the defendants implanted a “Stargate Remote Viewing Device” in her right eye. The opinion states that her amended complaint provided no additional detail showing that her claims were plausible. On June 24, 2022, the court adopted a recommendation and dismissed the case for lacking minimum legal viability under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Appeal and ruling

Hanson appealed. The Ninth Circuit referred the appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether Hanson could continue to proceed in forma pauperis—meaning without paying the usual court fees—or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.

The district court concluded that the appeal was frivolous and revoked Hanson's in forma pauperis status on appeal. The order does not rule on the merits of the appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.