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)
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?