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
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?