Sessing v. Beard, et al.

Filing 141

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT 136 Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/7/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
NATHAN SESSING,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT
MOTION TO PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL
(ECF No. 136)

STU SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff is a prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in a civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the violation of his First Amendment

20

free exercise rights. His case was dismissed on January 20, 2017. (ECF Nos. 116 &

21

117.)

22

On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No.

23

135.) That same day, he filed a motion seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal. (ECF

24

No. 136.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(3), “[a] party who was

25

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on

26

appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization.” As Plaintiff was granted leave to

27
28

1
2

proceed IFP in the underlying District Court action (ECF No. 4) the instant motion is
unnecessary, and will therefore be DISREGARDED as moot.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:

August 7, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2