1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 In re: ERIC THOMAS MESI, Case No. 22-cv-02582-JSC

8 Debtor. ORDER RE: IN FORMA PAUPERIS 9 ____________________________________ STATUS ON APPEAL TO THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 10 ERIC THOMAS MESI, Re: Dkt. No. 1 11 Appellant,

12 v. 13 PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 14 Appellee.

15 16 The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) has referred this action to this Court “for the 17 limited purpose of ruling on the [in forma pauperis] motion.” (Dkt. No. 1.) 18 Mr. Mesi filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy on July 6, 2020. He was granted a discharge 19 pursuant to

on September 30, 2020. See In re: Eric Thomas Mesi, No. 20-51015, 20 Dkt. No. 28 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020). A year later, Mr. Mesi filed a “motion to quash state 21 court claims from noncreditor PennyMac.” See In re: Eric Thomas Mesi, No. 20-51015, Dkt. No. 22 44. The bankruptcy court subsequently issued an order denying the motion to quash. See In re: 23 Eric Thomas Mesi, No. 20-51015, Dkt. No. 48. Mr. Mesi then filed a notice of appeal to the BAP 24 of the bankruptcy Court’s denial of his motion to quash. In re: Eric Thomas Mesi, No. 20-51015, 25 Dkt. No. 51. The bankruptcy court certified that Mr. Mesi’s appeal was not taken in good faith 26 under

(a)(3). See In re: Eric Thomas Mesi, No. 20-51015, Dkt. No. 70. The 27 bankruptcy court did so because (1) the issues raised in his motion to quash, including that 1 bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Mesi’s claim under

(4); (3) the 2 || Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the bankruptcy court from considering Mr. Mesi’s challenge to 3 || the Nevada State Court’s order designating him as a vexatious litigant; and (4) the denial of the 4 || motion to quash was not an appealable order. (/d.) 5 As the bankruptcy court noted, the pleadings do not support his contention that the 6 || bankruptcy discharge was violated and there is nothing in the record that suggests that conclusion 7 was erroneous. In addition, to the extent that Mr. Mesi seeks to challenge the Nevada State 8 || Court’s actions his claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic 9 || Indus. Corp.,

(2005) (holding that Rooker-Feldman bars “cases brought by 10 state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the 11 district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 12 || judgments.”). 13 The Court finds that Mr. Mesi’s appeal is frivolous because it “has no arguable basis in 14 fact or law.” O'Loughlin v. Doe,

(9th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks and citation 3 15 || omitted). It is therefore not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of

(a)(3). a 16 See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). Accordingly, Mr. Mesi’s motion to 3 17 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. 18 The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order to the BAP and close this action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: May 5, 2022 21 Peg Ne, th □□ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28