Williams v. Hill et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/21/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 BRETT LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 v. Case No. 1:16-cv-00540-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AS MOOT T. E. HILL, et al., Defendants. 10 (ECF NO. 16) 11 On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s screening order, 12 which dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15). On 13 that same day Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 14 16). Because Plaintiff’s application did not include all of the necessary information, the Court 15 ordered Plaintiff to submit additional information. (ECF No. 19). However, in the interim, the 16 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 17 22 & 23). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is moot. 18 19 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED as moot. 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 21, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1

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?