Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01417/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01417-4/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 

ROGER WILKERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1518 LKK KJN P 

ORDER 

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred to the undersigned the limited question 

whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue pursuant to the appeal of this court’s 

dismissal of this action on January 27, 2014. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be 

taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”). 

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows: 

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the 

district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court 

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find 

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). 

 This court finds no reason to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. This court 

dismissed the action on January 27, 2014, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order 

by failing to timely file an amended complaint. On January 30, 2014, plaintiff filed his notice of 

Case 1:14-cv-01417-LJO-EPG Document 23 Filed 02/03/14 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

appeal, the same day he filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is signed 

December 4, 2013; therefore, under the mailbox rule,1 plaintiff’s amended complaint is not 

deemed timely filed, as it was due November 18, 2013. (ECF No. 12.) However, but for the 

filing of plaintiff’s appeal depriving this court of jurisdiction, the undersigned is inclined to 

vacate the judgment. 

 Plaintiff’s appeal appears to be neither frivolous, see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 

438, 445 (1962) (an appeal of a nonfrivolous issue is assumed to be made in good faith), nor 

unreasonable, see Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000) (“to determine that an 

appeal is in good faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the 

appeal has some merit”). Therefore, there does not presently appear to be a basis for finding that 

plaintiff’s appeal is taken in bad faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff should be entitled to continue proceeding 

in forma pauperis pursuant to the appeal of this action.2 

 DATED: February 3, 2014. 

 

1

 “[T[he Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners.” Douglas 

v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 

(1988). 

2

 If plaintiff withdraws his appeal, the court is inclined to vacate the judgment and remand the 

action to the magistrate judge to screen the amended complaint. 

Case 1:14-cv-01417-LJO-EPG Document 23 Filed 02/03/14 Page 2 of 2