Cohea v. Adams et al

Filing 94

NOTICE and ORDER Finding That Plaintiff is NOT Entitled to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the 89 Appeal Filed January 26, 2012; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Serve Copy of Order on Ninth Circuit, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/28/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

APPEAL NO. 12-15327

v.

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT
PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
THE APPEAL FILED JANUARY 26, 2012

D. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON NINTH
CIRCUIT

14
15

/

16
Plaintiff Danny James Cohea, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
17
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 13, 2008. On December 21, 2011,
18
the Court dismissed this action, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (ECF Nos.
19
86, 87.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 24, 2012. (ECF No. 89.)
20
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action
. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:
(A) the district court - before or after the notice of appeal is filed - certifies that the
appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or
finding;
or
(B) a statute provides otherwise.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
The district clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals when
the district court does any of the following:
(A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis;
1

1

(B) certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith; or
(C) finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

2
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).
3
4

Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis in this action in the district court, and Plaintiff

5

is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal unless the Court makes a finding to the contrary.

6

For the reason that follows, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

7

on his appeal filed January 24, 2012.

8

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n

9

no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

10

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court

11

of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

12

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

13

physical injury.” Plaintiff became subject to section 1915(g) on March 1, 2011, when his third action

14

was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 Plaintiff is subject to

15

section 1915(g) and does not meet the imminent danger exception. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled

16

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(C).

17

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis
on the appeal filed on January 24, 2012;

20

2.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4)(C), this order serves as

21

notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of

22

the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal;

23

and

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1
The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases: 2:97-cv-00366-FCD-DAD Cohea v. Bray, et al.,
(E.D. Cal.) (dismissed March. 26, 1998 for failure to state a claim); 3:09-cv-00679-RCJ-RAM Cohea v. Access
Secure Pak, et al., (D. Nev.) (dismissed August 3, 2010 for failure to state a claim);and 3:10-cv-00437-IEG-RBB
Cohea v Patzloff, et al., (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed March 1, 2011 for failure to state a claim).

2

1

3.

2
3
4

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

February 28, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3