Balik v. Chocolate Shoppe Ice Cream Company, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Hon. William Alsup denying 29 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JEREMIAH W. BALIK,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. C 17-00455 WHA

v.
CHOCOLATE SHOPPE ICE CREAM CO.,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

/

16
17

An order adopted the report and recommendation of Judge Maria-Elena James, denying

18

plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. A subsequent order denied plaintiff’s motion

19

for reconsideration. Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, and the action was dismissed.

20

Plaintiff has now filed a new motion, captioned as “Motion — IFP Hearing,” which, to

21

the extent comprehensible, seeks to present oral argument on his request to proceed in forma

22

pauperis, which request has already twice been denied. This request and the subsequent

23

dismissal of the action are the subject of plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff’s

24

request for a hearing is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, that request is
also DENIED inasmuch as the appeal is not brought in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE