Dunne v. Bissett

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/2017 DENYING 32 Request to Proceed IFP on Appeal. (cc: USCA Ninth Circuit) (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DENNIS DUNNE, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0549-JAM-EFB P Petitioner, v. ORDER STEPHEN LANGFORD, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Judgment was entered in this action on April 20, 19 2017 and the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. On June 12, 2017, petitioner 20 filed a notice of appeal and a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 21 Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a district 22 court action who desires to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district 23 court which: 24 25 (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; 26 (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and 27 (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. 28 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). 1 1 2 3 Petitioner’s motion fails to satisfy all three of the requirements set forth in Rule 24(a), and is therefore denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to proceed in forma 4 pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 32) is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed 5 to serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and 6 petitioner is hereby informed that he may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United 7 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 8 DATED: June 14, 2017. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?