Aleman v. Director of CDCR

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal and Directing Clerk to Serve the Court of Appeals 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/22/16: The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JESUS ALEMAN, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 1:14-cv-00728-LJO-JLT (HC) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND DIRECTING CLERK TO SERVE THE COURT OF APPEALS (Doc. 28) CDCR, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 4, 2016, the Court entered judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus. On September 12, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis. 20 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 21 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: 22 24 (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 25 (B) a statute provides otherwise. 23 26 Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). 27 Because Petitioner was proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, he is entitled to 28 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal unless the Court finds his appeal is not taken in good faith or 1 1 finds that he is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “In 2 the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant's good faith is established by the 3 presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 4 (1958). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke 5 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), or where “the result is obvious or the arguments are 6 wholly without merit.” Davis v. Graves, 2007 WL 4207804, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (citing 7 Cannon v. Hawaii Corp. (In re Cannon), 796 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 9 Here, Petitioner does not state which issues he wishes to appeal, and the Court can find no valid ground on which an appeal can be based. The Court thoroughly reviewed Petitioner’s 10 claims and found them to be wholly without merit. Consequently, the Court certifies that any 11 appeal taken from the Court's denial of the petition would be frivolous and therefore not taken in 12 good faith. Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Ellis, 356 U.S. at 674–75; Hooker v. American Airlines, 13 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma 15 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3). The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the 16 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?