Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01460/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01460-4/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

1The notice of appeal is docketed as filed on October 26, 2005.

2

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAPHAEL KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1460 FCD GGH P

vs.

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, sought relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered in this case on October 13, 2005. Petitioner’s notice

of appeal, per the mailbox rule, was filed on October 23, 2005.1 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,

275-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988); Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1995); Fed. R.

App. P. 4(c). On February 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a (belated) motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.2

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

[A] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the

district court action. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

Case 2:05-cv-01460-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 03/02/06 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

2

without further authorization unless . . . the district court ...

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the

party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. . . . 

 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). While this court has not certified that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in

good faith, neither has plaintiff ever been granted in forma pauperis status in this matter. In fact

in the August 2, 2005 Findings and Recommendations , p. 1 (adopted by Order, filed on October

13, 2005), plaintiff was found to have filed an inadequate in forma pauperis affidavit (and,

alternatively, not to have paid the filing fee). However, because summary dismissal of this action

was found to be appropriate, the court did not require plaintiff’s further application with regard to

the filing fee. Id. 

Therefore, as plaintiff has not made the requisite showing to entitlement to in

forma pauperis status action in this matter, and as he has not filed a motion in compliance with

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), plaintiff’s request for in forma pauperis status on appeal should be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

DATED:March 1, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01460-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2