Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00784-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN McLAUGHLIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00784-AWI-JLT (PC)

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT 

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

(Doc. 25)

Plaintiff, Martin McLaughlin, is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in 

this action on May 22, 2014. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The Magistrate Judge screened and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend 

for failure to state a claim. Doc. 10. On September 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 

Complaint, which was screened and dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 

Docs. 11, 12. Plaintiff requested and received a sixty-day extension of time to file the Second 

Amended Complaint with which he complied on February 9, 2015. Docs. 13, 14, 16. Despite 

being repeatedly given the standards applicable to the claims Plaintiff was attempting to state, 

Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims and a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”)

recommended that the action be dismissed. Doc. 17. The F&R was served on Plaintiff on April 

16, 2015 and contained notice that any objections to the F&R should be filed within thirty days. 

Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections. Doc. 18. The order adopting the F&R, which dismissed this 

action, found that Plaintiff was unable to state any cognizable claims. Doc. 19.

Case 1:14-cv-00784-AWI-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 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

On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

1

 Doc. 21. On July 6, 2015, the Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of 

determining whether in forma pauperis should continue for this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). For the reasons which 

follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal should be revoked. Id.

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it 

is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The test for allowing an appeal in forma 

pauperis is easily met; the good faith requirement is satisfied if the appellant seeks review of any 

issue that is not frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)); see also Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092 (if at 

least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, the appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole).

Despite repeatedly being given applicable legal standards and opportunity to cure the 

defects in his pleading, Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims in this action, which renders 

the issues raised in his appeal frivolous. Plaintiff does not seek review of any issue that is not 

frivolous.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal was 

not taken in good faith and he should not be permitted to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal; and

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), the Clerk of the Court 

shall serve this order on Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 On July 1, 2015, the district court received a duplicate filing of Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal. See

Doc. 24.

Case 1:14-cv-00784-AWI-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2