Truong v. Hoshino

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/10/10 DENYING 25 Motion to Proceed IFP without prejudice.(Dillon, M)

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 On October 29, 2009, plaintiff's March 9, 2009 application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice because it was incomplete. In addition, the filing fee was paid in this court by defendant Hoshino when the action was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court. 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TAI TRUONG, Plaintiff, vs. MARTIN HOSHINO, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has filed an appeal from this court's dismissal of the action. On January 28, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.1 The motion will be denied without prejudice so that plaintiff may file his motion directly with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit using the form provided by that court. ///// ///// ///// ///// ORDER No. CIV S-08-2831 MCE 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
DAD:4 tru2831.ifp

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's January 28, 2010 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 25) is denied without prejudice. DATED: February 10, 2010.

2