Lindblad v. Lunny

Background

Robert Lindblad had an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit. That court made a limited referral to the district court to decide whether Lindblad’s earlier permission to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, without paying court fees—should continue, or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.

The district court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Lindblad’s claims without leave to amend. The court had determined that the claims were frivolous. On its own review, the court agreed that Lindblad’s allegations were “implausible and delusional” and that the complaint made “random assertions” without fairly notifying the defendants what he claimed against them.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), a party who was allowed to proceed without paying fees in the district court may generally continue doing so on appeal unless the district court finds that the party is not entitled to that status or certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court stated that the good-faith requirement is met when the party seeks review of at least one issue that is not frivolous.

Ruling

The court concluded that Lindblad’s appeal was not taken in good faith and terminated his in forma pauperis status. The clerk was requested to forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 23-15772.