Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2022

Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:21-cv-07579
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Krause, Judge Corley denied defendants’ motion to rescind Johnson’s fee waiver, finding his appeal was not frivolous as a whole.

Who this affects

Wayne Johnson retained permission to proceed without paying the ordinary filing fee on appeal; the defendants’ motion to rescind that status was denied.

What happened

In Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder, the court had dismissed Wayne Johnson’s claims and entered judgment. Johnson appealed and was proceeding without paying the ordinary filing fee under the court’s fee-waiver process.

The defendants asked the court to rescind Johnson’s permission to proceed without paying that fee on appeal. The court explained that it could do so if the appeal was frivolous as a whole, but noted that Johnson’s appeal involved more than the claims dismissed on immunity grounds.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied the motion, concluding that Johnson’s appeal was not frivolous as a whole. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and stated that the order disposed of the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Johnson v. Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder · No. 3:21-cv-07579
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
Sept. 29, 2022

Background

The court had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered judgment on August 11, 2022. Wayne Johnson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that appeal was docketed on August 24, 2022. Johnson had been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without paying the ordinary filing fee.

The defendants moved to rescind Johnson’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. The court vacated the scheduled October 6, 2022 hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), a district court may revoke in forma pauperis status on appeal if it certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith or finds that the party is otherwise not entitled to proceed without paying the fee, while stating its reasons in writing. The court explained that an appeal not taken in good faith means a frivolous appeal. It also cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that the appeal must be frivolous as a whole, rather than merely containing particular frivolous claims.

Court’s analysis

Johnson’s complaints asserted claims against Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Deborah Cooper, County Court Reporter Patricia D. Malone, County Chief Probation Officer Esa Ehmen-Krause, and the County. The court had dismissed the claims against Cooper and Malone based on absolute quasi-judicial immunity. It dismissed claims against Ehmen-Krause partly because of absolute judicial immunity and partly because of deficient factual allegations. It dismissed the claims against the County because of deficient factual allegations.

The court recognized that some appeals involving immunity had been certified as frivolous. But it concluded that immunity was not the only issue in Johnson’s appeal. Because the appeal was not frivolous as a whole, the court declined to revoke Johnson’s in forma pauperis status.

Disposition

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion to rescind Johnson’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 32.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.