Wang v. City of Cupertino
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-06822
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wang v. City of Cupertino, Judge Freeman denied Jane Wang’s request to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that her appeal was not taken in good faith.
Jane Wang’s request to pursue her appeal without paying filing fees was denied; the order also concerns her appeal from the judgment for the City of Cupertino and Philip Willkomm.
What happened
In Wang v. City of Cupertino, Jane Wang, representing herself, sued the City of Cupertino and Philip Willkomm. She alleged that they violated her rights by fining her and ultimately removing a playhouse from her backyard.
The court had dismissed all of Wang’s federal claims without allowing another amendment, declined to hear her state-law claims, and entered judgment for the defendants. After Wang appealed, the Court of Appeals asked the district court to decide whether she could continue the appeal without paying filing fees or whether the appeal was frivolous or made in bad faith.
The court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied Wang’s request to proceed without paying filing fees. The court found the appeal frivolous because Wang’s federal claims lacked an arguable legal basis. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Wang v. City of Cupertino · No. 5:22-cv-06822
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 23, 2023
Background
Jane Wang sued the City of Cupertino and Philip Willkomm while representing herself. She alleged that the defendants violated her rights by fining her for, and eventually removing, a playhouse in her backyard.
On July 19, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Wang’s federal claims without leave to amend. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims and later entered judgment for the defendants. Wang appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 14, 2023.
Motion and legal standard
Wang asked to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The Ninth Circuit referred the appeal to the district court to determine whether that status should continue or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a district court may prevent an appeal from proceeding without filing fees if it certifies in writing that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The opinion explains that an appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. If at least one issue is not frivolous, the appeal generally proceeds without filing fees as a whole.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Wang’s appeal was not taken in good faith because it was frivolous. Referring to its earlier dismissal order, the court stated that Wang’s federal claims failed for one or more of these reasons: they did not allege sufficient facts, were barred by issue preclusion, were filed after the applicable statute of limitations, or relied on statutes that did not provide a private right of action.
The court also stated that Wang had made three unsuccessful attempts to plead her claims and had received instructions about the deficiencies. It had concluded that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore found that any challenge to its judgment lacked an arguable basis in law.
Disposition
The court certified that Wang’s appeal was not taken in good faith and denied her motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.