Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01103-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL WESP,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1103 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, without counsel, proceeding with a civil rights complaint filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint was filed in this court on May 23, 2016. On July 

19, 2016, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed without prejudice. Judgment was entered on July 22, 2016. Plaintiff filed an appeal, 

and on August 10, 2016, the appellate court filed a referral notice asking this court to determine 

whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal, or whether the appeal 

is frivolous or taken in bad faith. 

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

[A] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the 

district-court action, . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 

without further authorization, unless . . . the district court . . . 

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the 

party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and 

states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; . . . .

Case 2:16-cv-01103-KJN Document 34 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Such appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue 

that is “nonfrivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); see 

also Huffman v. Boersen, 406 U.S. 337, 339 (1972) (“In the federal system, ‘good faith’ has 

‘been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a non-frivolous question for review.’”) 

(quoting Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring)). In turn, an issue is 

frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that the District Attorney’s office of 

Placer County was liable on a failure to train theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Brady1

violations committed by subordinate prosecutors in his underlying criminal prosecution. This 

court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 

(1994), because plaintiff’s challenge would necessarily implicate the validity of his underlying 

criminal conviction. (ECF No. 29.) Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken 

in good faith, and his in forma pauperis status is revoked. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status (ECF No. 29) is revoked. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

Dated: August 12, 2016

 

/melg1103.ngf

 

1

 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Case 2:16-cv-01103-KJN Document 34 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 2