Daria v. Hurly et al

Filing 16

ORDER Revoking IFP Status on Appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/13/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2015: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (igS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HALEY DARIA,

Case No. 15-cv-00970-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

9
10

KATHLEEN HURLY, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On May 4, 2015, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Haley Daria’s application for leave to

13

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 8.]

14

Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. [Docket Nos. 9, 11.] Upon review of Plaintiff’s

15

amended complaint, the court found that Plaintiff had not remedied the deficiencies identified in

16

the court’s dismissal order and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As

17

Plaintiff had been given an opportunity to address the deficiencies in her original complaint, the

18

court dismissed the action on October 1, 2015. [Docket No. 12.] Plaintiff has appealed from that

19

order, and the Ninth Circuit has referred the matter to this court for the limited purpose of

20

determining whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal. [Docket

21

No. 15.]

22

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it

23

is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This section is generally construed to mean

24

that an appeal must not be frivolous. See, e.g., Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445

25

(1962) (holding that the term “‘good faith’ . . . must be judged by an objective standard” and is

26

demonstrated when appellant seeks review “of any issue not frivolous”); Ellis v. United States,

27

356 U.S. 674, 674 (1958) (noting that “[i]n the absence of some evident improper motive, the

28

applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous”);

1

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “[i]f at least one

2

issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be

3

granted for the case as a whole”).

4

Having reviewed this matter, the court concludes there are no valid grounds on which to

5

base an appeal. Accordingly, the court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and revokes her in forma pauperis status.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2015

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate u
M. RyJudge

NO

RT

14

onna
Judge D

ER

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

A

H

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNIT
ED

10

RT
U
O

S

9

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

Circuit.

FO

8

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and the Ninth

LI

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C