Youngblood v. Warden
Filing
17
ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,
Plaintiff,
8
9
vs.
ORDER REVOKING
PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS
Warden A. A. LAMARQUE; and 45
Unknown Names of Gov. Officials,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-4423 PJH (PR)
Defendants.
12
13
/
This civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner was dismissed and closed on
14
February 4, 2013. Plaintiff has filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit and the case has been
15
referred back to this court for the limited purpose of determining whether plaintiff’s in forma
16
pauperis status should continue or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.
17
Youngblood v. Warden, No. 13-15312, Docket No. 2.
18
An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a
19
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a
21
district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
22
court.” The party must attach an affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party's inability to pay
23
or give security for fees and costs,” (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3) “states
24
the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However,
25
even if a party provides proof of indigence, “an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis
26
if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
27
An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.”
28
Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is “frivolous” if
1
it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.
2
1990).
3
After providing plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, the court dismissed
He stated that from 2005 through 2010 unidentified correctional officers injured him which
6
led to mental anguish, they stole his property and denied him access to the courts. Plaintiff
7
did not provide details regarding these allegations or even the identities of most of the
8
defendants. The court noted that the complaint was substantially similar to a prior
9
complaint that plaintiff filed with this court that was also dismissed. See Youngblood v. The
10
People of the State of California, C 11-4064 PJH (PR). Plaintiff appealed the prior case as
11
For the Northern District of California
this case as plaintiff’s allegations were confusing, rambling and at times incomprehensible.
5
United States District Court
4
well and it was also determined that his appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith.
12
As it is clear that this appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
13
status is REVOKED. The Clerk shall forward this Order to the Ninth Circuit in case No. 13-
14
15312.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
17
18
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Youngblood4423.ifp-rvk.wpd
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?