IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 1, 2009
HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, PLAINTIFF,
SHASTA COUNTY PROBATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered in this action on September 30, 2008. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The appeal has since been processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pending before the court is plaintiff's March 16, 2009, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:
[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . .
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). This court has not certified that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith and has not otherwise found that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be denied as unnecessary.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 16, 2009, motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (no. 62) is denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.