Shehee v. King et al

Filing 16

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS re 15 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/30/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.
AUDREY KING, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM (PC)
Appeal No. 15-15843
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

14
15

By notice entered April 28, 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

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Plaintiff is appealing the Court’s dismissal of his complaint
following screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s complaint was an apparent
appeal from a state court judgment. Upon screening, the Magistrate Judge found that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction and recommended dismissal. Following consideration of
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations
and dismissed the action. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is without arguable substance in law and
fact, the case is frivolous and Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on 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. 15-15843, filed April 24, 2015;

11
12

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

13

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

14
15

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.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 30, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2