Garbett v. Schaffer, 2:18-CV-1793-KJM-DMC-P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200115d84
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the court's final judgment entered on September 30, 2019. The matter was referred to the undersigned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to certify whether in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith, in which case in forma pauperis status would be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Am
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the court's final judgment entered on September 30, 2019. The matter was referred to the undersigned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to certify whether in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith, in which case in forma pauperis status would be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Ame..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the court's final judgment entered on September 30, 2019. The matter was referred to the undersigned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to certify whether in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith, in which case in forma pauperis status would be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Having reviewed the entire file, the court concludes in forma pauperis status should be revoked because the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be revoked; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Pro Se Unit at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Source: Leagle
