Ungureanu et al v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/12/13 DENYING 30 Motion to Proceed IFP. (cc: 9th Circuit) (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ELIZABETH UNGUREANU &
DANIEL UNGUREANU

11
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:12-cv-3109 TLN KJN PS

12
v.
13
14

A. TEICHERT & SON, INC., and
RONALD WOLFSON

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER
/

17

On June 5, 2013, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state

18

court; granted defendant A. Teichert & Son, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs’

19

claims against defendant Teichert with prejudice; and remanded the remainder of the action

20

(plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendant Ronald Wolfson) to state court. (ECF Nos. 26,

21

27.) Thereafter, on June 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion to

22

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos. 28, 30.)1

23

////

24
25
26

1

The action was initially removed to this court by defendants, who paid the appropriate
fee upon removal. As such, plaintiffs were not previously granted in forma pauperis status
during the pendency of the action in district court.
1

1

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court

2

action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R.

3

App. P. 24(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma

4

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith

5

standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff

6

satisfies the “good faith” requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is “not

7

frivolous.” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at

8

445).

9

For the reasons stated in the March 15, 2013 findings and recommendations (see

10

ECF No. 22), adopted by the district judge on June 5, 2013 (ECF No. 26), the court finds that the

11

instant appeal is frivolous. The court thus certifies that plaintiffs’ appeal is not taken in good

12

faith.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 30) is

15
16
17
18
19

DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiffs and on
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 2013

20
21
22

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
2