Baker v. Kramer

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 7/7/2010 ORDERING 26 Motion for Certificate of Appealability is denied as moot and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. (Matson, R)

(HC)Baker v. Kramer

Doc. 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 4, 2010, judgment was entered in this court denying the petition. On May 27, 2010, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On June 7, 2010, petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability in this court. On June 8, 2010, this court denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability. On June 18, 2010, petitioner filed what appears to be a copy of a motion for certificate of appealability and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which are addressed to, and presumably filed in, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To the extent petitioner is making a second request for a certificate of appealability in this court, his request will be denied as moot. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be denied on the merits. ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK JAY BAKER, Petitioner, vs. C. KRAMER, Respondent. / ORDER No. CIV S-08-0311 FCD DAD P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 denied. moot; and

The court file reflects that petitioner paid the filing fee for this action. Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a district court action who did not proceed in forma pauperis in the district court but desires to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court which: (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). In addition, Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms requires a prisoner to attach a certified prison trust account statement showing all receipts, expenditures and balances during the last six months. In support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, petitioner has filed what he refers to as a "Form CJA 23 Affidavit." This form does not show in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms petitioner's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs. Petitioner has also failed to submit a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the past six months. Because petitioner has not complied with all of the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's June 18, 2010 motion for a certificate of appealability is denied as

2. Petitioner's June 18, 2010 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

DATED: July 7, 2010.

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2