Stewart v. Monogram Biosciences

Filing 75

ORDER DECLINING TO RULE ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FOR APPEAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/7/2012. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER DECLINING TO RULE ON
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FOR
APPEAL

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 11-01181 CRB

SIDNEY B. STEWART,

v.
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES,

15

Defendant.

/

16

The Court is in receipt of a Referral Notice from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

17
18

directing this Court to determine whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue

19

for his appeal, or whether his appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See Referral Notice

20

(dkt. 74). The Court declines to make such a determination at this time, however, as the

21

Court believes that Plaintiff has paid his docket fee and is therefore not seeking in forma

22

pauperis status on appeal. See Notice of Appeal Notification Form (Amended) (dkt. 72)

23

(“Date Docket Fee Paid: 2/27/12 (receipt # 34611071015)”).1 Of course, if the Ninth Circuit

24

concludes that Plaintiff really is seeking in forma pauperis status on appeal, this Court will

25

//

26

//

27
28

1

To the extent that there is a misunderstanding about whether Plaintiff paid the docket fee, it
is likely due to the original (non-amended) version of the Notice of Appeal Notification Form filed by
the Clerk’s Office of this Court, which did not include any information for “Date Docket Fee Paid.”
See Original Notice (dkt. 70).

1
2

promptly make the requested determination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 7, 2012

5
6
7
8
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
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\1181\order re IFP appeal.wpd

2