Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00805/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00805-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO ARANDA, No. 2:07-cv-00805-MCE-DAD P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ELIZABETH MEYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On January 11, 2008 , this action was closed and judgment was entered. On January 23,

2008, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion For Reconsideration,” in which plaintiff requests

review of the undersigned’s order dismissing this action for failure to state a claim, denying

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, and dismissing plaintiff’s state law claims without

prejudice to its refiling in state court. The motion for reconsideration will be denied as defective

in that it fails to explain what new or different facts or circumstances exist which were not shown

in plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, filed on

December 6, 2007. See Local Rule 78-230(k). 

On February 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

Case 2:07-cv-00805-MCE -DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/08 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

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the

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

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). After review of the record herein, the court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is

not taken in good faith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 23, 2008 motion for reconsideration is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s February 21, 2008 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

Dated: March 13, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00805-MCE -DAD Document 26 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2