O'Keefe v. LeGrand, 3:16-cv-00430-MMD-VPC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180215e37
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal from the Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 48). The appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). The Court did not dismiss this action. The Court did transfer this action to the appropriate court in Ohio. The court of appeals dismissed an earlier appeal because the transfer meant that this Court, and the court of
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal from the Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 48). The appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). The Court did not dismiss this action. The Court did transfer this action to the appropriate court in Ohio. The court of appeals dismissed an earlier appeal because the transfer meant that this Court, and the court of ..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal from the Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 48). The appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court did not dismiss this action. The Court did transfer this action to the appropriate court in Ohio. The court of appeals dismissed an earlier appeal because the transfer meant that this Court, and the court of appeals, no longer had jurisdiction. Nothing in the motion for reconsideration changed these conclusions. Petitioner simply is trying to litigate an action that no longer is before this Court.
It is therefore ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 48) is denied.
Source: Leagle
