Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00198-36/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

Davon E. McCoy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R. Spidle, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-198 TUC DCB

ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds here in forma pauperis, and generally may proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis, unless the Court finds the appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.

1915(a)(3) and FRAP 24(a). In the absence of some evident improper motive, good faith is

shown by the presentation of any issue which is not plainly frivolous. Gilbert v. United

States, 278 F.2d 61, 62 (9th Cir. 1960); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674 (1958). 

Upon the filing of an appeal where the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the

Court automatically considers whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.

1915(a)(3).

Here, Plaintiff is attempting to appeal an interlocutory Order issued by this Court

denying reconsideration of the summary judgment it granted on some claims based on a well

established rule of law, Edwards v. Balisok, 502 U.SA. 641 (1997), which prohibits using 42

U.S.C. § 1983 as a basis for challenging a rule violation such as the one challenged here by

Case 1:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 172 Filed 02/09/10 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 -

the Plaintiff. The Court considered the question three times, and denied further

reconsideration of the question on January 12, 2010. The Court explained that there was no

manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence to support reconsideration.

On February 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order denying

reconsideration. There is no basis for reconsideration of the question, and the appeal is

frivolous. Additionally, this is an interlocutory appeal because the Plaintiff seeks to appeal

a ruling that is not the final ruling in this litigation. Except under rare circumstances

interlocutory appeals must be avoided to prevent piecemeal appeals. Here, an interlocutory

appeal is not appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (setting out provisions for interlocutory

decisions). If it appears from the record that the order sought to be reviewed is not

appealable, the conclusion is warranted that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Javor v.

Brown, 295 F.2d 60, 61 (9th Cir. 1961). Here, the Order denying the motion to reconsider is

not appealable; the Order granting summary judgment in part under Balisok, is not

appealable. There can be no other conclusion, except that the appeal is not taken in good

faith.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that after a review of the case, the Court finds the appeal is NOT

TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH and Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 172 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2