ORDER

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's Referral Notice. ECF No. 46. The Ninth Circuit refers the matter to the Court for the limited purpose of determining if Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should continue during his appeal or if Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous or is taken in bad faith. Id.

"[A]n appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where none of the legal points are arguable on their merits." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint on the bases that: (1) the applicable statute of limitations, Nevada Revised Statute 11.190(4)(c), barred the claims, (2) equitable tolling, if applicable, could not extend to a date which would overcome the statute of limitations; and (3) no form of applicable relief is available to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a judge acting within his judicial role. The Court did not allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint since amendment would be futile. See Sweaney v. Ada Cty., Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997).

The applicability of equitable tolling in the instant matter is arguable on its merits, but judicial immunity and the resultant absence of damages, declaratory, or retrospective injunctive relief is not. The only available form of relief against a judge acting within his judicial role in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is prospective relief. See Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2016). It is not arguable that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that he will again be sentenced by Defendant, Judge Robert Lane, and be uninformed about his right to appeal. The Court therefore finds that the pending appeal is frivolous.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of his pending appeal as the appeal is frivolous.