ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Docket No. 69.

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Eugene F. Dantzler has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis. Mr. Dantzler appears to meet the financial requirements for in forma pauperis status. Nevertheless, "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if . . . it is not taken in good faith," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and courts have held that a frivolous appeal is not taken in good faith. See, e.g., Morris v. Lewis, No. C 10-5640 CRB (PR), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60172, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012); cf. Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that, "[i]f at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole"). The Court finds that Mr. Dantzler's appeal is frivolous for the reasons stated in its summary judgment order. Cf. In re Haw. Corp., 796 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 1986) (in addressing frivolous appeals in the context of assessing costs and attorney's fees, stating that "[a]n appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or where the arguments are `wholly without merit'"). Accordingly, Mr. Dantzler's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is hereby DENIED. This ruling does not preclude Mr. Dantzler from asking the Ninth Circuit directly for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) (providing that "[a] party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of the notice prescribed in Rule 24(a)(4) [i.e., notice to the court of appeals of the district court denial]").

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to immediately provide a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit.

This order disposes of Docket No. 69.

IT IS SO ORDERED.