Manalisay v. Hall
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-04701
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Manalisay v. Hall, Judge Chhabria revoked Manalisay’s fee-free appeal status after finding the appeal frivolous.
James Manalisay’s appeal was affected because his permission to proceed without paying court fees was revoked. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was directed to receive the order.
What happened
Manalisay v. Hall involved James Manalisay’s appeal from a case about alleged constitutional violations connected to child-support proceedings. The court said his allegations were nearly impossible to understand and that he challenged actions by child-support agents who allegedly took funds under court orders.
The court also described Manalisay’s proposed bank-fraud claim against Karen Santana, identified as his ex-wife and the mother of his child. It said the criminal bank-fraud law he cited does not give private people the right to sue under it.
Judge Vince Chhabria revoked Manalisay’s permission to pursue the appeal without paying filing fees because he found the appeal frivolous. He directed the clerk to send the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The detailed version
- Manalisay v. Hall · No. 3:22-cv-04701
- Vince Chhabria
- May 19, 2023
What the order decided
The court revoked James Manalisay’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. In plain English, this removed his permission to pursue the appeal without paying the required court fees. The court found that the appeal was frivolous, meaning it lacked a reasonable legal basis.
Background described by the court
The order referred to the court’s earlier order dismissing the case with prejudice. It said Manalisay’s allegations about constitutional violations by administrative actors involved in his child-support proceedings were “nearly impenetrable.” The court said he appeared not to recognize the authority of administrative law judges and treated state-court orders concerning his child-support obligations as contracts that did not bind him because he had not agreed to them.
The order said Manalisay challenged actions by Department of Child Support Services agents who allegedly levied his bank accounts, retirement investment accounts, and COVID-19 stimulus checks under those court orders. He characterized those actions as unlawful seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The court also said he attempted to bring a bank-fraud claim against Karen Santana under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, but that criminal statute does not create a private right of action, meaning it does not authorize an individual to sue under it.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the revocation of Manalisay’s in forma pauperis status on appeal. The clerk was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This order addressed the fee status of the appeal and the court’s determination that the appeal was frivolous; it did not reconsider the earlier dismissal on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.