Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03777-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

This is a closed action. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, originally filed this case as a civil action 

in the Del Norte County Superior Court, Case No. CVUJ13-1181, alleging constitutional 

violations that occurred during his previous incarceration at Pelican Bay State Prison. Defendants 

removed the action to federal court on the ground that certain of his claims arose under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants on March 27, 2017. See Dkt. 64. 

Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal (dkt. 67), and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) on appeal (dkts. 71, 72). 

Defendants paid the district court filing fee upon removing this action to federal court, so 

Plaintiff was not proceeding IFP in this Court. Plaintiff therefore does need permission to proceed 

IFP on appeal: Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that a 

party proceeding IFP in district court may continue in that status on appeal unless the district court 

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, does not apply. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), which 

provides that an appeal may not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good 

faith, does not turn on whether IFP status was granted in district court, so it does apply. 

Here, because its ruling granting summary judgment was correct, this Court finds that the 

appeal is not taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and is therefore frivolous. 

See Fed. R. App. P. (“FRAP”) 24(a)(3)(A); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958); 

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 75 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 

548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal 

would not be frivolous). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. 

Dkts. 71, 72. 

The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith notify Plaintiff and the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals of this Order. See FRAP 24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed IFP on 

appeal in the Ninth Circuit within thirty (30) days after service of notice of this Order. See FRAP 

24(a)(5). Any such motion “must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the 

district court’s statement of reasons for its action.” Id.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 71 and 72.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

September 26, 2017

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 75 Filed 09/26/17 Page 2 of 2