Branch v. United States of America
Filing
21
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1915(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/17/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CLARENCE A. BRANCH,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 1915(g)
Re: Dkt. No. 18
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.16-cv-03811-JSC
12
Plaintiff Clarence A. Branch, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United States of
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
America. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
reserved to a later time evaluation of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court
thereafter issued an Order to Show Cause because mail sent to Plaintiff at his last known address had
been returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff then responded to the Order to Show Cause,
provided his new address, and consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt.
No. 10.) The Court then reviewed the complaint under Section 1915 and dismissed it for failure to
state a claim because Plaintiff had failed to identify a cognizable legal theory. (Dkt. No. 11.) On the
deadline to do so, Plaintiff filed a document captioned “Amendment.” (Dkt. No. 14.) The Court
construed this filing as First Amended Complaint and again dismissed the complaint for failure to state
a claim under Section 1915. (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff had until December 19, 2016 to file a Second
Amended Complaint. Instead, on December 16, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 16.)
Plaintiff thereafter filed the now pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Dkt. No.
18.)
The Court’s dismissal order was not an appealable order as Plaintiff was granted leave to
amend. See Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley, 629 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.
1
2010) (“An order dismissing a case with leave to amend may not be appealed as a final decision under
2
§ 1291.”); see also Baldwin v. Sebelius, 654 F.3d 877, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (“a plaintiff who has been
3
given leave to amend may not file a notice of appeal before entry of a final judgment even when he
4
elects to stand on an unamended pleading”). The Court therefore certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not
5
taken in good faith, DENIES his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and REVOKES his in
6
forma pauperis status for his appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2017
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CLARENCE A. BRANCH,
Case No. 16-cv-03811-JSC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 17, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
18
19
20
Clarence A. Branch
391 Ellis Street
General Delivery
San Francisco, CA 94102
21
22
23
Dated: January 17, 2017
24
25
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
26
27
28
By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
3
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?