1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 AROR-ARK O’DIAH, No. C 19-01854 WHA 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER RE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON 13 JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, et al., APPEAL 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Our court of appeals has referred this matter to the undersigned judge for the limited 17 purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for pro se plaintiff 18 Aror-Ark O’Diah (Dkt. No. 34). A prior order granted plaintiff’s IFP application and screened 19 his complaint under

(e)(2)(B), holding that the complaint failed to state a claim 20 for relief (Dkt. No. 10). Specifically, that order found that (id. at 3–4): 21 plaintiff thr[ew] a wide net, naming dozens of defendants, including 22 federal judges, the United States Department of State, the United States Postal Service, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal 23 Revenue Service, United Parcel Service, Hewlett-Packard, Chase Bank, Staples Store, Western Union, such disparate individuals as a driver who 24 allegedly hit plaintiff with his car, and health providers in several locations where plaintiff sought treatment on multiple occasions. The 25 allegations [we]re inter-woven between unconnected defendants over nearly two decades. In the 146 sequentially-numbered paragraphs of the 26 complaint, not a single viable legal claim [was] plainly alleged, and no defendant reasonably could [have been] expected to prepare a proper 27 response to th[e] pleading[.] 28 Under Section 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 1 || presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States,

(1958); see also Hooker v. American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2002). A 3 || complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 4|| Williams,

(1989). The term “frivolous” “embraces not only the inarguable 5 || legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”

6 Here, plaintiff's complaint and notices of appeal are replete with fanciful allegations of 7 || conspiracies (see Dkt. Nos. 10 at 2; 16 at 4; 30 at 2), and the complaint lacks any arguable basis 8 || in law or in fact. This order thus reiterates that the complaint is frivolous. Accordingly, this 9|| order CERTIFIES that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith within the meaning of Section 10} 1915(a)(3) and thereby REVOKES plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Clerk 11 }| shall please notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of this order. E 12 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 15} Dated: September 26, 2019. = 5 watt ast 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28