Rogers v. Superior Court of San Diego County

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. As explained above, Petitioner's motion is premature at this stage of the litigation because there has not been a final order or judgment entered in this case, and an interlocutory appeal is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner's appeal is frivolous and DENIES Petitioner's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/4/2018. (Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

TYRONE ROGERS,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Petitioner,

v.
JOSIE GASTELO, Warden,

15

[Doc. No. 23]
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Tyrone Rogers (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 8. On August 10, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge

20

issued a Report recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

21

Amended Petition. See Doc. No. 20. On August 31, 2018, Petitioner filed objections to

22

the Report and Recommendation, a Notice of Appeal, and motion requesting to proceed

23

IFP on appeal. See Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 23. The Court has not yet issued a final order or

24

judgment in this case.

25

Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party

26

granted leave to proceed IFP in district court may continue that status on appeal unless

27

the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, which in this context

28

means that it is frivolous. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958). Title
-1-

16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

1

28 of the United States Code, section 1915(a)(3) similarly provides that an appeal may

2

not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies it is not taken in good faith. For purposes of §

3

1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v.

4

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.

5

1984).

6

As explained above, Petitioner’s motion is premature at this stage of the litigation

7

because there has not been a final order or judgment entered in this case, and an

8

interlocutory appeal is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court concludes that

9

Petitioner’s appeal is frivolous and DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP on

10

appeal. See Tran v. Macomber, No. 11-cv-877-CW, 2015 WL 4035111, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

11

June 30, 2015) (denying the petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal because the

12

court had not entered a final order or judgment in the case; thus, “such an appeal would

13

be frivolous.”).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19
20

Dated: September 4, 2018
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)