Downs v. Balls, et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/2016 REVOKING plaintiff's ifp status. (cc: Ninth Circuit re No. 16-15302) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY DOWNS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0507 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LORI BALLS, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(c). Judgment was entered in this action on November 4, 2015. On December 10, 2015,

20

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On April 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred

21

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

22

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

23

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

24

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an

25

objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an individual “seeks appellate review of any

26

issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of

27

28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.

28

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
1

After review of the record herein, the court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in

1
2

good faith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

3

denied.

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s in forma

5

pauperis status (ECF No. 7) is revoked.

6

Dated: April 28, 2016

7
8
9
/down0507.ifp.app.ngf

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