Riley v. Kernan et al
ORDER Responding to 58 Referral Notice. After review of the record herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's appeal lacks any arguable basis in law or fact, and thus is considered as not being taken "in good faith" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the Court hereby REVOKES Plaintiff's IFP status. The Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this Order. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/1/2017. (USCA Case Number 17-56298. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 3:16-cv-0405-MMA-JMA
STEVEN E. RILEY,
ORDER RESPONDING TO
[Doc. No. 58]
S. KERNAN, et al.,
Plaintiff Steven E. Riley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and fourteen prison officials
violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to random drug testing, charging him
with repeated, falsified disciplinary violations, and placing his name on a list of inmates
required to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous programs, based
on his failure to provide a urine sample. On August 10, 2017, the Court dismissed this
action. See Doc. No. 53. On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
See Doc. No. 55.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals now refers this matter for the “limited purpose
of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or
whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See Doc. No. 58. Rule 24(a)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in district court may continue in that status on appeal unless the
district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, which in this context
means that it is frivolous. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958). Title
28 of the United States Code, section 1915(a)(3), similarly provides that an appeal may
not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies it is not taken in good faith. For purposes of
section 1915, an appeal is “frivolous” if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225
(9th Cir. 1984).
After review of the record herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal lacks
any arguable basis in law or fact, and thus is considered as not being taken “in good
faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the Court hereby REVOKES
Plaintiff’s IFP status. See Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent
appellant is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal only if appeal would not be
The Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of
this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 1, 2017
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
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?