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)

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