Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01412-2/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

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

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AUDREY KING, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM (PC)

Appeal No. 15-15843

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS 

By notice entered April 28, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit referred this matter to the District Court for the limited purpose of determining whether 

in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or 

taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 

1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where the 

District Court finds the appeal to be frivolous). 

Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir., 

cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal.

1992). A federal court may dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis prior to service if it is 

satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Sully v. Lungren, 

842 F.Supp. 1230, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1994). If a plaintiff with in forma pauperis status brings a 

case without arguable substance in law and fact, the court may declare the case frivolous. 

Case 1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/01/15 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

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Plaintiff is appealing the Court’s dismissal of his complaint 

following screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s complaint was an apparent 

appeal from a state court judgment. Upon screening, the Magistrate Judge found that the Court 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction and recommended dismissal. Following consideration of 

Plaintiff’s objections, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations

and dismissed the action. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is without arguable substance in law and 

fact, the case is frivolous and Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The appeal is declared frivolous and not taken in good faith;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma 

pauperis in Appeal No. 15-15843, filed April 24, 2015;

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this Order serves as notice 

to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the 

finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2