Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03883/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03883-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CURTIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVE SHAPIRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3883 MMC

ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT

TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO FILE

APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the Court is plaintiff Robert Curtis’s (“Curtis”) application to proceed in forma

pauperis, filed November 23, 2005. As Curtis, on November 14, 2005, filed a notice of

appeal of the Court’s October 26, 2005 order dismissing the instant action with prejudice,

the Court construes the instant application as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require that such motion be decided by

the district court. See Fed. R. App. 24(a)(1). A party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal must file an affidavit showing the party’s “inability to pay or to give security for

fees and costs,” claiming “an entitlement to redress,” and stating “the issues that the party

intends to present on appeal.” See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Curtis has not submitted an

affidavit claiming an entitlement to redress and stating the issues he intends to present on

appeal. 

Case 3:05-cv-03883-MMC Document 11 Filed 11/28/05 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

Even if Curtis had complied with Rule 24(a)(1), however, the Court would deny his

application. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma

pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3). “Good faith” requires that the applicant seek review of an issue that is not

frivolous. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s October 26, 2005 order dismissing the

instant action, Curtis may not evade the dismissal of actions he filed in the District of

Oregon by refiling an essentially identical complaint in this Court.

Accordingly, the Court hereby CERTIFIES that Curtis’s appeal is not taken in good

faith and, consequently, his application to file his appeal in forma pauperis is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2005 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03883-MMC Document 11 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2