1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-03368-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT 9 v. TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS; 10 MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIRECTIONS TO CLERK DISTRICT/SPECIAL EDUCATION 11 LOCAL PLAN AREA (DIABLO), et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is a Referral Notice issued to this Court by the United States 15 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referring the above-titled matter for the limited 16 purpose of determining whether plaintiff-appellant Michael Geary Wilson’s (“Wilson”) in 17 forma pauperis status should continue or be revoked. See

(a)(3) 18 (providing “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 19 writing that it is not taken in good faith”); Coppedge v. United States,

, 445 20 (1962) (holding “‘good faith’ . . . must be judged by an objective standard”; noting “good 21 faith” is demonstrated when appellant seeks review of “any issue not frivolous”). Having 22 reviewed the file and considered the matter, the Court rules as follows. 23 Plaintiff appeals “all proceedings and filed orders” in the above-titled action (see 24 Notice of Appeal, filed August 25, 2020), which the Court understands to refer to orders 25 adverse to him, specifically, this Court’s orders dismissing plaintiff’s initial and amended 26 complaints (see Doc. Nos. 30, 53), denying plaintiff’s motions to disqualify the 27 undersigned (see Doc. Nos. 28, 35, 48), and denying plaintiff’s second request to extend 1 First, as set forth in detail in the Court’s orders dismissing plaintiff’s initial and 2 amended complaints, plaintiff’s pleadings failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure, as interpreted by McHenry v. Renne,

(9th 4 Cir. 1996). (See Order, filed July 14, 2020 (finding plaintiff’s Initial Complaint, which 5 comprised 198 pages of text, asserted twenty-seven Claims for Relief, and named 122 6 defendants, was needlessly long, consisted of verbose and confusing allegations, and 7 failed to sufficiently identify the alleged acts or omissions on which any particular 8 defendant’s alleged liability was predicated); Order, filed August 25, 2020 (finding 9 plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which comprised 609 pages of text, asserted forty- 10 seven Claims for Relief, and named 222 defendants, constituted an exacerbation of the 11 types of defects contained in his Initial Complaint).) 12 Second, as set forth in the Court’s orders denying plaintiff’s motions to disqualify 13 the undersigned, plaintiff’s “challenge to local rules and judicial rulings” failed to raise a 14 legally cognizable ground for disqualification. (See Order, filed July 24, 2020, at 2:2; see 15 also Order, filed August 21, 2020.)1 16 Lastly, plaintiff lacked good cause for his second requested extension of the 17 deadline to file an amended complaint, which request was based on his obligation to 18 perform work in other cases in which he was involved. Although the Court granted 19 plaintiff’s prior request for an extension on such grounds, the Court, in doing so, noted it 20 was affording plaintiff “one extension” and made clear that, irrespective of plaintiff’s 21 obligations in other cases, “if [he] wishe[d] to proceed in the above-titled action, he 22 [would] need to meet the deadlines set by this Court.” (See Order, filed August 11, 2020, 23 at 1:19-22; see also, Order, filed August 21, 2020.) 24 Under such circumstances, any appeal of the above-referenced order would lack 25

26 1 Further, in its order denying plaintiff’s request that the Court “fully disclose on the record all bases to reasonably question [its] impartiality,” the Court explained that, if any 27 grounds for disqualification existed, it would have acted in accordance with the 1 an arguable basis in law or fact, and, consequently, would not seek review of a non- 2 || frivolous issue. See Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (holding appeal is 3 || “frivolous” where “none of the legal points are arguable on the merits” (alterations 4 || omitted)). 5 Accordingly, Wilson's in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED. 6 The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals 7 || for the Ninth Circuit. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: September 4, 2020 . MAXINE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge 12

13

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28