Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777-14/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 

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

(“IFP”) on appeal (dkts. 71, 72). Thereafter, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to

proceed IFP on appeal. Dkt. 75.

On December 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for 

failure to prosecute. Dkt. 77. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed in the Ninth Circuit a motion for 

reconsideration as to that Court’s dismissal of his appeal.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for relief from this Court’s March 27, 2017 judgment under 

Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that motion was deemed 

as filed on April 25, 2018. Dkt. 78. 

On June 19, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, vacated 

its December 27, 2017 Order, and reinstated the appeal. Dkt. 83.

In its Order dated October 19, 2018, the Court considered Plaintiff’s motion for relief from 

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 96 Filed 08/21/19 Page 1 of 3
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

judgment and determined that to the extent that his motion sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the 

motion was denied as untimely because the date it was deemed filed—April 25, 2018—was more 

than a year after entry of judgment on March 27, 2017. Dkt. 88 at 2 (citing Nevitt v. U.S., 886 

F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he one-year limitation period is not tolled during an 

appeal.”)). The Court also determined that Plaintiff did not present the type of extraordinary 

circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument for vacating the March 

27, 2017 Order could only be construed as his mere dissatisfaction with that Order, which was not 

an adequate ground for relief. Id. at 2-3 (citing Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 

637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981)). Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief 

from its March 27, 2017 judgment upon concluding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under 

the aforementioned subsections of Rule 60(b). Id.

On December 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion (under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(5)) to extend the time to appeal the Court’s October 19, 2018 post-judgment order 

(denying his motion for relief from judgment). Dkt. 90. 

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s October 19, 2018 

post-judgment order. Dkt. 91. The Court deemed the filing date of the notice of appeal to be on 

December 16, 2018 because that notice was served on prison officials for mailing on December 

16, 2018. See Dkt. 91-1 at 2.

On May 7, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to appeal the October 19, 

2018 post-judgment order nunc pro tunc to December 16, 2018, the date his notice of appeal were 

deemed filed. Dkt. 95 at 3.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. Dkt. 92.

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 

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 96 Filed 08/21/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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

Here, because its March 27, 2017 ruling granting summary judgment and its October 19, 

2018 post-judgment order are both 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); 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 second motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Dkt. 92.

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 separate 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 No. 92.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

August 21, 2019

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 96 Filed 08/21/19 Page 3 of 3