Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMOND TADEFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00677-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Docket No. 67

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Edmond Tadefa’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) (providing that “a party to a districtcourt action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court”). The

Court has reviewed Mr. Tadefa’s financial affidavit and finds that he qualifies for IFP status. 

However, his application may be granted only if the Court also finds that his appeal is neither 

frivolous nor taken in bad faith. See Jackson v. Gonzalez, No. 5-cv-513 L (NLS), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 129545, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2015) (in evaluating whether plaintiff’s IFP status 

should continue for his appeal, evaluating whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith).

In its summary judgment ruling, the Court explained why each of Mr. Tadefa’s claims 

lacked merit. Because Mr. Tadefa has not articulated any basis as to how this Court erred, see, 

e.g., Docket No. 66 (notice of appeal) (stating that “Judge MAY HAVE OVER LOOKED 

MATTERS”), the Court finds that his appeal “has no arguable basis in fact or law,” and therefore 

is frivolous. Jackson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129545, at *5-6.

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 69 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Tadefa’s application to proceed IFP on appeal.

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

of the Court to immediately notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 67.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 69 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2