McMaster v. Yates, et al

Filing 115

ORDER signed by District Judge Frank R. Zapata on 5/30/2012. Plaintiff's Request to Proceed IFP on Appeal is DENIED and IFP Status is REVOKED. (cc Ninth Circuit.) (Marrujo, C)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

Dana McMaster,

5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.

7
Doctor Thomas, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 1-04-6453-FRZ
ORDER

10
11

A review of the record reflects that Plaintiff is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

12

(“IFP”) on appeal. However, as Plaintiff’s appeal in this case is not taken in good faith and

13

is frivolous, Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP on appeal is denied and IFP status is revoked.

14

See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9 th Cir.

15

2002). As stated in the Court’s Order granting summary judgment in this case (Doc. 104),

16

Plaintiff primarily sued Defendants for deliberate medical indifference in violation of the

17

Eighth Amendment. However, the undisputed material, admissible evidence before the

18

Court reflected that Plaintiff received extensive, timely and appropriate medical treatment

19

pertaining to the relatively minor injuries at issue (an ankle injury) which showed that there

20

was no deliberate medical indifference by Defendants, and that Defendants did not fail to

21

take reasonable action to address Plaintiff’s medical needs. The Clerk of the Court shall

22

immediately notify and send a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit.

23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED this 30th day of May, 2012.