Lindblad v. Bolanos

Background

The Ninth Circuit referred to the district court the question whether Robert Michael Lindblad could continue appealing without paying fees. The court also considered Lindblad’s motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. Under the applicable statute, an appeal may proceed without fees only if it is taken in good faith. An appeal is considered in good faith when at least part of it is nonfrivolous, meaning it has an arguable basis in fact or law. The court noted that an incomprehensible claim may be frivolous.

Arguments on Appeal

The court identified seven issues raised by Lindblad. He argued that he was entitled to default judgment because he had served Valerie Barnes and defendants had not responded. The court said Lindblad appeared confused about Barnes’s position and did not explain why default judgment was justified.

Lindblad argued that the July 4, 2022 judgment was invalid because it lacked a reasoned opinion. The court explained that the judgment stated the action was dismissed without leave to amend and that the reasoning appeared in a separate 19-page dismissal order issued the same day. The court also rejected Lindblad’s claim that the ruling on sanctions lacked an explanation, stating that the dismissal order explained the decision. It added that the court could decide motions on written submissions without an oral hearing and that Lindblad was not prejudiced by the timing of the decision.

Lindblad repeated allegations concerning defense counsel, non-lawyers preparing legal work, and disputed facts about a proof of service and events involving Safeway employees. He also challenged the court’s explanation of the notice and correction period required before seeking sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court said the earlier order cited Rule 11(b)(2) incorrectly, but that the requirement actually applied under Rule 11(c)(2).

Lindblad argued that denying permission to file a second amended complaint violated due process, but the court said he did not provide a coherent explanation for why he was entitled to amend again. He also argued generally that the complaint should not have been dismissed without explaining why the dismissal was incorrect. Finally, the court said his remaining claims were incomprehensible and therefore had no arguable legal basis.

Ruling

Judge Susan Illston reviewed the docket and determined that the appeal was frivolous. The court therefore denied Lindblad’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, without paying fees—on appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims again; it addressed whether Lindblad could pursue the appeal without paying fees.