Drake v. Niello Company et al

Filing 119

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/31/18 DENYING as unnecessary 114 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

E. DRAKE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-1036-JAM-EFB PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

THE NIELLO COMPANY, NIELLO
IMPORTS OF ROCKLIN, INC., NIELLO
PERFORMANCE MOTORS INC.,
NIELLO MOTOR CAR COMPANY AND
SHIPPING EXPERTS INC.,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9.

20

Judgment was entered in this action on April 12, 2018. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff subsequently

21

filed a notice of appeal and a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

22

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

23

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action
. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless
the district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that
the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis . . . .

24
25
26

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). This court has not certified that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good

27

faith and has not otherwise found that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma

28

pauperis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in

2

forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 114) is denied as unnecessary.

3

Dated: May 31, 2018.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2