Hurt v. The State of Florida

Filing 4

ORDER CONSTRUING DOCUMENT AS NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL re 3 Received Document filed by Tyrone Hurt. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/18/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TYRONE HURT

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE
COUNTRY OF VIETNAM; THE
COUNTRY OF SOUTH AMERICA;
UNITED STATES; and THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA

No. MC-14-80047 EMC
ORDER CONSTRUING DOCUMENT AS
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DENYING
REQUEST TO PROCEED ON APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13
14

Defendant.
___________________________________/

15
On March 5, 2014, this Court rejected Plaintiff’s complaint in this action pursuant to the pre16
filing order issued in Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests No. C-12-4187 EMC, 2013 WL 144047, at
17
*8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013). This case was one of fourteen complaints submitted for review by
18
Plaintiff on February 13, 2014.
19
On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “motion for notice of appeal informa
20
pauperis [sic]” in each of the fourteen cases. The Court construes this document as Plaintiff’s
21
notice of appeal from this Court’s rejection of the instant complaint.
22
Further, Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel.
23
Plaintiffs’ requests are DENIED. The Court finds the instant appeal to be frivolous as the complaint
24
contained incoherent allegations, sought outlandish relief, and otherwise plainly failed to state a
25
claim upon which relief can be granted, as discussed in the underlying order rejecting the complaint.
26
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies
27
28

1

in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th

2

Cir. 2002) (construing “in good faith” to mean “non-frivolous”).

3

This Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for in forma pauperis status on appeal and for the

4

appointment of counsel is without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the requests before the United

5

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) (detailing the procedure

6

necessary for bringing a motion before the court of appeals to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED

9
Dated: April 18, 2014

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________

12

EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2