Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01360/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01360-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK KARL JOST, 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, )

)

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 05 - CV - 1360 AWI DLB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

COUNSEL

[Documents #18, #19, #21]

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a civil action against the United States Post Office. After receiving several

extensions of time, and on May 3, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. On May 22, 2007, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

On June 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Along with his notice of appeal,

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma paupiers on appeal, a motion for a certificate of

appealability, and a motion for the appointment of counsel. 

DISCUSSION

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court may proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization unless the district court certifies the

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 24(a)(3). Here, the appeal appears to be

in good faith because Plaintiff is appealing this court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Case 1:05-cv-01360-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 06/11/07 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

Because Plaintiff had been proceeding in this court in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is entitled to in

forma pauperis status on appeal.

Plaintiff next requests a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is

necessary when a state prisoner is seeking to appeal a district court’s denial or dismissal of a writ

of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Because this action was not a petition for writ of habeas

corpus, no certificate of appealability is necessary.

Finally, Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on

a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding is

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent

litigant under Section 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which

requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir.1997) withdrawn in part on other grounds on th

reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir.1998) (en banc); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, th

1331 (9 Cir.1986). Because this court has entered final judgment in this action, the court finds th

that any request for counsel on appeal should be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to

raising this issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01360-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2