Martin v. Miller

Filing 13

ORDER Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 08/21/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

YOHONIA MARTIN,

Case No. 15-cv-02136-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

9
10

ROBERT MILLER,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On July 2, 2015, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Yohonia Martin’s application for leave

13

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 5.]

14

Plaintiff timely filed a document which the court construed to be Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

15

[Docket No. 6.] Upon review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court found that Plaintiff had

16

not remedied the deficiencies identified in the court’s dismissal order. As Plaintiff had been given

17

an opportunity to address the deficiencies in her original complaint, the court dismissed the action

18

on August 3, 2015. [Docket No. 8.] Plaintiff has appealed from that order, and the Ninth Circuit

19

has referred the matter to this court for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s in

20

forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal. [Docket No. 12.]

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

granted for the case as a whole”).

3

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

4

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

5

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

Circuit.

12

S

R NIA

Dated: August 21, 2015

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
Donna

NO

RT

13

Judge

ER

H

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

10

UNIT
ED

9

RT
U
O

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

7

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

A

6

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C