1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES ex rel. MELCHOR Case No.: 23-cv-0399-DMS-DEB KARL T. LIMPIN, 12 ORDER RESPONDING TO Plaintiff, 13 REFERRAL NOTICE v. 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Relator Melchor Karl T. Limpin, proceeding pro se, brings this qui tam 19 action against California Governor Gavin Newsom, California State Senate President pro 20 tempore Toni G. Atkins, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, various Doe individual 21 defendants and their respective employers for colluding to violate the False Claims Act 22 (“FCA”) by permitting “unauthorized foreigners” to obtain COVID-19 relief, file tax 23 returns, and receive Medicaid benefits. 24 On April 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. 25 (ECF No. 6.) On October 24, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 26 and granted the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) Accordingly, the Court 27 denied Plaintiff’s pending motions as moot. (Id.) On December 7, 2023, the Court denied 28 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a 1 || Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 2 3 The Ninth Circuit now refers this matter to the trial court for the “limited purpose of 4 ||determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether 5 ||the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” (ECF No. 39.)

(a)(3) 6 || provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court “certifies in 7 || writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal is considered “frivolous” under 28 8 |}U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) if the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 9 || Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). 10 Upon review of the record herein, the Court finds Plaintiffs appeal lacks an arguable 11 |/basis in law or in fact. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant 12 such litigants may not prosecute a gui tam suit against the United States. Stoner v. 13 Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ.,

(9th Cir. 2007). Further, the 14 ||/Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel because “appointment of counsel 15 should be allowed only in exceptional cases,” and the Court did not find Plaintiff's suit to 16 || be one of those exceptional cases. U.S. ex rel. Gardner v. Madden,

, 793 (9th 17 || Cir. 1965). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration failed to address these issues and was 18 || dismissed as meritless. Accordingly, the Court certifies that Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous 19 therefore REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status under

|| 1915(a)(3). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2» J \ 22 ||Dated: January 3, 2024 rr bn Yn. 23 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge A United States District Court 25 26 27 28