IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 12, 2011
JAMES TROTTER, PLAINTIFF,
F. GONZALEZ, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
This case was dismissed for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by Order, filed on July 8, 2011, and judgment thereon entered.*fn1 After plaintiff, a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in the district court, filed a notice of appeal, the Ninth Circuit referred this matter "for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous on taken in bad faith." Docket # 27.
The Court of Appeals cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Id. Section 1915(a)(3) states:"[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." Hooker is referenced for the principle that "revocation of forma pauperis status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous." *fn2 Id. The Court of Appeals requested notification of this court's determination within 21 days whether in forma pauperis status should be revoked on appeal, failing which plaintiff/appellant's in forma pauperis status would be continued automatically. Id., citing Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). After review of the record herein, the court has determined that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith, this case, as previously noted, having been dismissed for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted in the Order dismissing the case (docket # 22, p. 6), "[p]laintiff has failed to frame colorable claims within his amended complaint and the court finds that further leave to amend would be futile." In sum, the amended complaint was not decipherable.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is to serve this response to the Ninth Circuit's August 9, 2011 (docket # 27), Referral Notice for Appellate Case No. 11-16872, upon the Ninth Circuit.
Gregory G. Hollows