The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Court Judge
Before the Court are the following three motions filed by Plaintiff Fernando Aranda: (1) Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") with Application to Proceed IFP By A Prisoner, [Docket No's. 26-27]; (2) Motion to Vacate Order Denying Plaintiff's Request to Proceed IFP, [Docket No's. 25]; and (3) Motion for Extension of Time to Move to Appeal IFP, [Docket No. 24]. The Court finds these matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R. CIV. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After reviewing the moving papers the court GRANTS permission to proceed IFP on appeal; DENIES the motion to vacate the prior Order; and holds that the motion for an extension of time is MOOT.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the California Department of Corrections ("CDCR") Facility at Mule Creek State Prison ("MCSP"). Plaintiff brings suit against Elizabeth Meyers ("Meyers"), a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective, and MCSP employees "Smith," "May," "Anderson," "Edwards," "Gutierrez," "Schopf," "Botella" and Appeals Coordinator E.A. Reyes (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff's Complaint also alleges claims against "Inmates at MCSP" and "John Does."
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "abuse on electronic transmission" has violated his Constitutional rights. The abuses include being monitored by computer technology and specifically targeted by the Defendants in a manner that may bring about post-traumatic stress disorder. The Complaint includes allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, white collar crimes, criminal threats, and blackmail by Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Meyers is having sexual relationships with inmates in order to provoke them to target Plaintiff.
On June 9, 2009, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's action with prejudice, finding that Plaintiff did not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Reconsider on July 2, 2009, which was denied. At that time Plaintiff also filed a Application to Proceed IFP, which the Court held moot in light of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.
On July 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On August 6, 2009, Plaintiff sent the Court a letter asking for more time to file a motion to proceed IFP on appeal. On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff moved to vacate the Court's July 14, 2009 Order denying Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP. On August 17, 2009, before any response was issued relating to Plaintiff's August 6th letter, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner ("Application").
On January 10, 2010, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for failure to pay fees.
Under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:
"A party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that: (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (c) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal."
Under subsection (a)(3)(A) and 28 U.S.C. 1915, a party may not proceed IFP on appeal if the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Nevertheless, if the district court grants the motion, the party may proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving security for fees and costs, unless a statute provides otherwise. Fed Rules App. Proc. R. 24(a)(2).
A. The Motion and Application to Proceed IFP Satisfy Rule 24(a) and the Appeal ...