Houston v. Knowles et al

Filing 117

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/30/13 DENYING as unnecessary 115 Motion to Proceed IFP.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KELVIN HOUSTON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:09-cv-0178 GEB EFB P

vs.
MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, see Dckt. No. 19, seeks relief

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 20, 2012, this action was dismissed and judgment

18

duly entered. On December 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On January 18, 2013,

19

plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Federal Rules of Appellate

20

Procedure provide as follows:

21
22

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court
action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization
unless the district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or
finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis . . . .

23
24

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). This court has not certified that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good

25

faith and has not otherwise found that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma

26

pauperis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in

2

forma pauperis on appeal (Dckt. No. 115) is denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

3

Dated: January 30, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2