UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 23, 2012
JANE MILER, AN INDIVIDUAL, CAREER PRESS, INC., NEW PAGE BOOKS, AND DOES 1-100. DEFENDANTS.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 93.) Final judgment was entered in this case on January 12, 2012, and plaintiff has filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which she has filed an identical motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-59 (1982). This transfer of jurisdiction is designed to avoid the confusion and inefficiency of two courts considering the same issues simultaneously. See Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). This court has been asked on numerous occasions, however, to determine whether forma pauperis status should continue for plaintiffs on appeal. See, e.g., Gilmore v. California, No. 11-743, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012); Wilkins v. Freitas, No. 09-323, slip. op. at 1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011). In the interest of judicial efficiency, the court will make such determination at the present time, when the case is fresh in the court's mind.
Denial of forma pauperis status at the appellate level is appropriate where the district court finds the appeal to be frivolous. Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's appeal concerns the court's order granting defendants' special motion to strike pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute and is not patently frivolous. The court having considered plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit finds good cause supporting plaintiff's application and hereby GRANTS plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.