Price v. Cunningham et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 36 44 Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/23/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

FRED PRICE,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-SMS PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
(ECF Nos. 36, 44)

12

S. R. CUNNINGHAM, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Fred Price (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 25, 2011, the Court issued an order

17

revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and requiring him to pay the full filing fee within forty

18

five days. On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,1

19

and a motion for a sixty day extension of time. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38.) On June 14, 2011, Plaintiff

20

filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 43.) On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second motion

21

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 44.)

22

The Court found that Price v. Parks, case no. 2:02-cv-05955-UA-SH (C.D. Cal. August 21,

23

2002); Price v. Rianda, case no. 2:02-cv-07526-UA-SH (C.D. Cal. October 3, 2002); and Price v.

24

Parks, case no. 2:02-cv-07724-UA-SH (C.D. Cal. October 16,2002) count as strikes pursuant to 28

25

U.S.C. § 1915(g). According Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. To

26

the extent that Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of the prior order of the Court, upon the filing

27
1

28

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to request in forma pauperis status upon appeal he will need to file
his application with the appellate court.

1

1

of a notice of appeal, jurisdiction is transferred from the district court to the court of appeals. City

2

of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. V. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001).

3

Therefore, filing a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the issues involved

4

in the appeal. Id. Since Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal this Court lacks jurisdiction to

5

entertain Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and motion for reconsideration. The motions

6

will be addressed after a decision is issued in Plaintiff’s appeal.. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions

7

to proceed in forma pauperis are HEREBY DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

June 23, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2