Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00937/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00937-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

TANYA MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-937-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

On August 11, 2015, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to the substantiality doctrine. (ECF Nos. 4, 6.) Thereafter, on August 18, 2015, plaintiff

filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos. 8, 

9.)

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court action 

who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[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.” The good faith standard is an 

objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff satisfies the 

“good faith” requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is “not frivolous.” Gardner v. 

Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445).

////

Case 2:15-cv-00937-MCE-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/20/15 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

For the reasons stated in the July 24, 2015 findings and recommendations (see ECF No. 

4), adopted by the district judge on August 11, 2015 (ECF No. 6), the court finds that the instant 

appeal is frivolous. The court thus certifies that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and on the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00937-MCE-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2