Pagtakhan v. Foulk

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL(SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

MARLON E. PAGTAKHAN,

12

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Respondent.

13
14

No. C 09-5495 SI (pr)

Docket Nos. 46, 47 & 48

v.
ED FOULK,

15
16

/

17
18

Petitioner has filed several documents seeking leave to proceed on appeal in forma

19

pauperis in the above-entitled action. See Docket Nos. 46, 47 & 48. Earlier this year, after

20

Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee, the Court dismissed on Younger abstention grounds the

21

habeas action Petitioner filed challenging issues related to his competency proceedings. See

22

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971); Docket Nos. 1 (filing fee paid) & 38 (order

23

dismissing petition). The Court also denied a certificate of appealability because Petitioner

24

failed to demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states

25

a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

26

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

27

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). See Docket No. 43.

28

//

1

Because the Court now finds that Petitioner’s appeal is not taken in “good faith,” leave

2

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 46, 47 & 48) is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1915(a)(3).

4

The clerk is directed to notify the court of appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: November 18, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

G:\SI\HABEAS\2009\09-5495\09-5495.10.wpd

28
2