Todd v. Canby et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/17/2014 REVOKING the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. (cc: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DEREK TODD,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1018 GEB AC PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

U.S. JUDGE WILLIAM CANBY, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 22, 2013 together with a motion to

17

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in

18

forma pauperis on November 7, 2013. On December 24, 2013, this action was dismissed with

19

prejudice for failure to state a claim and plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant. See ECF No.

20

5. Plaintiff has since filed a timely Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 7.

21

On January 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a Referral Notice, referring

22

this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis

23

status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See

24

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that

25

is “nonfrivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue

26

is “frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614,

27

617 (9th Cir. 1990).

28

Here, plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal does not identify what portion of the court’s December
1

1

24, 2013 order he seeks to appeal. Nonetheless, the undersigned, having fully considered the

2

matter, finds that reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s resolution of

3

plaintiff’s claims, or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

4

encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, any appeal would be frivolous or taken in bad

5

faith, and plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is

7

revoked.

8

DATED: January 17, 2014

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2