Perez v. State of California

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/17/17 ordering that plaintiff's in forma pauperis status 11 is revoked. (cc: USCA, 9th circuit) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN VALDEZ PEREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0221 KJN P

v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COURT OF
APPEAL,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a former juvenile detained in the California Youth Authority, is proceeding pro

18
19

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

20

§ 636(c). Judgment was entered in this action on May 4, 2017. On June 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a

21

notice of appeal. (ECF No. 18.) On July 14, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred

22

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

23

should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

////
1

1

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or

2

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989).

3

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

4

good faith. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status

5

(ECF No. 11) is revoked.

6

Dated: July 17, 2017

7
8
9
/pere0221.ngf

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