Benson v. CA Correctional Peace Officers Assn., et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 4/8/10 DENYING pltf's 71 Motion to Proceed IFP. (cc: USCA) (Owen, K)

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 vs. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Defendants. / This action was dismissed on February 24, 2010. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit on March 26, 2010 together with a notice of appeal. In support of her application, plaintiff indicates that she is presently unemployed and is in receipt of unemployment benefits. A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In this case, plaintiff paid the filing fee and did not proceed in this court in forma pauperis. Thus, plaintiff is not automatically entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TELICIA Y. BENSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:08cv0886-LKK-JFM PS

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

Rule 24(a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a party who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court and attach to that motion a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, claim an entitlement to redress and a statement of the issues the party intends to present on appeal. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis does not claim an entitlement to redress and does not present the issues she intends to present on appeal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 26, 2010 request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. DATED: April 8, 2010.

/014; benson.ifpa.den

2