Glass v. Tercero

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/26/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND GEORGE GLASS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. TERCERO,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-02065-AWI- DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
(Document 13)

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Ronald George Glass (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in

17
18

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 24, 2014.

19

On January 12, 2015, the Court dismissed the action because Plaintiff’s removal was

20

improper, and because Plaintiff has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and did not meet

21

the imminent danger requirement. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

22

pauperis as moot.

23

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2015.

24

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party wishing to proceed in

25

forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit

26

that:

27

(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability

28

to pay o to give security for fees and costs;
1

1
2

(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and

3

(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.

4

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

5

An appeal is taken in good faith if the appellant seeks review of any issue that is not

6

frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Hooker v. American

7

Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (if at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, the

8

appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole).

9

Here, Plaintiff fails to state any issues that he intends to present on appeal, and the Court can

10

discern no basis for Plaintiff’s appeal, other than a mere disagreement with the Court’s order.

11

Moreover, the Court finds that any grounds for appeal would be frivolous. Plaintiff’s action was

12

dismissed because he was improperly attempting to “remove” his closed action from state court.

13

Plaintiff was also deemed to have three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and he did not meet the

14

imminent danger exception.

15

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

16

1.

17

in good faith; and

18

2.

19

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Court finds that the appeal was not taken

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B), the Clerk of the Court shall serve this order

on Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 26, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2