Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01683/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01683-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE MILES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. COX, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01683-SKO (PC)

Appeal No. 15-15960

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT 

APPEAL WAS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD 

FAITH

(Docs. 16 and 19)

Plaintiff Maurice Miles, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 28, 2014. On April 22, 2015, the 

Court dismissed the action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. Plaintiff 

filed a notice of appeal on May 12, 2015, and on May 14, 2015, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to the district court for a determination whether 

the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3)(A). 

An appeal is taken in good faith if the appellant seeks review of any issue that is not 

frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Coppedge v. United

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917 (1962)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Hooker v. 

American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (if at least one issue or claim is nonfrivolous, the appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole). The Court dismissed this action 

on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint set forth no claims under section 1983 and the Court 

lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. In his appeal, Plaintiff failed to 

Case 1:14-cv-01683-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 05/14/15 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

identify any legitimate grounds for appeal, and he mischaracterizes the dismissal as sounding in 

habeas corpus. Concurrently with his notice of appeal, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, 

which was denied in a separate order issued concurrently with this order. Similarly, that motion 

failed to set forth any legitimate grounds for reconsideration and contained arguments that were 

wholly inapposite. The Court can discern no basis for Plaintiff’s appeal other than his mere 

disagreement with the ruling, which does not suffice to demonstrate a good faith basis for the 

appeal. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Court finds that the appeal was not 

taken in good faith; and

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B), the Clerk of the Court shall serve this 

order on Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01683-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2