Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK BRADY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SCOTT JONES, Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

No. 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC

Ninth Circuit Case No. 21-16386

ORDER FINDING APPEAL FRIVOLOUS 

AND REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS 

This is a closed federal civil rights action. Plaintiff Patrick Brady (“Plaintiff”), a federal 

pretrial detainee being held in the Sacramento County Jail, appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals this Court’s dismissal of his action without leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.) The Ninth 

Circuit referred the matter to this Court for a determination of whether Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) status “should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or 

taken in bad faith.” (ECF No. 28.) The Court determines that Plaintiff’s IFP status should not 

continue. 

“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

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 29 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 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

2

pauperis is easily met . . . [t]he 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) 

(quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)); see also Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 

302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that an appeal is taken in “good faith” if it seeks 

review of “non-frivolous” issues and holding that if at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, 

the appeal must proceed IFP as a whole). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In other words, the term 

“frivolous,” as used in § 1915 and when applied to a complaint, “embraces not only the 

inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id.

As thoroughly detailed by the magistrate judge in the June 24, 2021 findings and 

recommendations and subsequently adopted by this Court on August 6, 2021, Plaintiff’s 

complaint was frivolous. (ECF No. 23 (adopting in full the findings and recommendations at

ECF No. 20).) More specifically, Plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law and amendment 

would be futile because: (1) Plaintiff alleges facts showing a legitimate government purpose for 

his placement in a total separation unit, which is fatal to his due process claim; (2) Plaintiffs’ 

second and third claims are not ripe; and (3) the nature of the purported dangers specified in 

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim are indisputably speculative. (See ECF No. 20 at 6–9.) 

In sum, there are no valid grounds on which an appeal can be based, given that none of the 

arguments Plaintiff made to this Court would be non-frivolous if made again on appeal. 

Based on the record before it, the Court finds and certifies that any appeal taken from its 

August 6, 2021 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s action (ECF No. 23) is frivolous and not taken in 

good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092; 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP status is hereby REVOKED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to notify Plaintiff and the Ninth Circuit of this Order

forthwith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed IFP on 

appeal in the Ninth Circuit within thirty (30) days after service of notice of this Order. See Fed. 

///

///

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 29 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 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

3

R. App. P. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2021

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 29 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 3