K'napp v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 20

ORDER REVOKING In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/19/15. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13

ERIC K’NAPP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CALIF. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-0099-AWI-BAM (PC)
Appeal No. 15-15435
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

14
15

By notice entered March 10, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

16

Circuit referred this matter to the District Court for the limited purpose of determining whether

17

in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or

18

taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d

19

1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where the

20

District Court finds the appeal to be frivolous).

21

Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v.

22

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.,

23

cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal.

24

1992). A federal court may dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis prior to service if it is

25

satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Sully v. Lungren,

26

842 F.Supp. 1230, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1994). If a plaintiff with in forma pauperis status brings a

27

case without arguable substance in law and fact, the court may declare the case frivolous.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Plaintiff is appealing the Court’s initial screening order, which
found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 8 and 18. Although the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to cure the
identified deficiencies, Plaintiff instead opted to file objections to the screening order and then to
proceed directly to an appeal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The appeal is declared frivolous and not taken in good faith;
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in Appeal No. 15-15435, filed March 9, 2015;
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this Order serves as notice
to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2