Epperson v. United States Congress et al

Filing 55

ORDER REVOKING In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal and DIRECTING the Clerk to Serve a Copy of this Order on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 10/22/2024. The appeal is DECLARED F RIVOLOUS. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in Appeal No. 24-06252. 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 finding that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS EPPERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. UNITED STATES CONGRESS, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BILL CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA, DONALD TRUMP, and GEORGE BUSH, 17 Case No. 1:23-cv-01687-KES-SKO Appeal No. 24-06252 ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Doc. 54) Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Chris Epperson proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. On 20 April 3, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 21 recommended dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim upon 22 which relief may be granted. Doc. 17. On April 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a two sentence objection 23 stating, without any specifics, that he objected to the findings and recommendations and intended 24 to appeal. Doc. 20. On September 30, 2024, the Court adopted the findings and 25 recommendations and dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26 Doc. 49. 27 28 On October 9, 2024, plaintiff appealed. Doc. 51. On October 16, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred the matter back to this Court for the limited purpose of determining 1 1 whether in forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous 2 or taken in bad faith. Doc. 54; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 3 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status appropriate where district 4 court finds appeal to be frivolous). 5 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) fails to state any cognizable claim and is 6 unintelligible, even after plaintiff was given leave to amend his initial complaint. Doc. 11. 7 Plaintiff’s statement of claim section states: 8 September 24, 1980 gun powder-plot of the Constitution laws had been violated by the actions of the State Legislature in 1961. November 30, 1963 Executive Order 11130 assa[s]ination ploted [sic] character for figure of speech John F. Kennedy. 9 10 11 Doc. 11 at 5. The FAC lists as defendants several former presidents and Vladimir Putin, it has no 12 clearly discernible factual allegations, and it does not explain how any defendant’s action violated 13 plaintiff’s rights. Doc. 11. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The appeal is DECLARED FRIVOLOUS. 16 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma 17 18 pauperis in Appeal No. 24-06252. 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this order serves as notice 19 to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the 20 finding that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal. 21 4. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?