Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00544-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE VICKERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN RICK HILL et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0544 CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit has referred this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of determining 

whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal. 

“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). “In the absence of some evident improper 

motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly 

frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (1958) (per curiam). See also Coopedge v. 

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The standard for determining whether an appeal is 

frivolous is essentially the same as the standard for determining whether a claim is frivolous –

i.e., whether it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 

1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). As another district court has noted, “it would be inconsistent for a 

district court to determine that a complaint is too frivolous to be served, yet has sufficient merit to 

Case 2:13-cv-00544-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/13/16 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

support an appeal in forma pauperis.” Russell v. Gilless ̧870 F. Supp. 204, 206 (W.D. Tenn. 

1994).

This court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous. Specifically, on October 

14, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd dismissed this action due to plaintiff’s failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief.1 On the same day, the court entered judgment and closed the 

case. On October 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. On November 10, 2015, 

the undersigned denied the motion because plaintiff had not explained how he could cure the 

defects in his complaint. For the same reasons discussed in the court’s orders issued on October 

14, 2015, and November 10, 2015, the undersigned finds plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and 

therefore not taken in good faith.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certifies that plaintiff’s appeal is not 

taken in good faith; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall immediately notify the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit of this court’s determination.

Dated: January 13, 2016

ec

vick0544.ifp

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636. (Doc. No. 4)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00544-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2