Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00118-3/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

27

28

U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. L. SCHULTIES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00118-OWW-SMS PC

APPEAL NO. 10-15339

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON THE

APPEAL FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2010

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE

TO SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON NINTH

CIRCUIT

Plaintiff Steven Williams is a prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 25, 2010, the Court dismissed this

action, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

and judgment was entered. (Docs. 23, 24.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2010. 

(Doc. 25.)

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

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

. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:

(A) the district court - before or after the notice of appeal is filed - certifies that the

appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to

proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or

finding;

or

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

The district clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals when

1

Case 1:09-cv-00118-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 3
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

the district court does any of the following:

(A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis;

(B) certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith; or

(C) finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

Because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis in this action in the district court,

Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal unless the Court makes a finding to the

contrary. For the reason that follows, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis on his appeal filed February 12, 2010. 

28U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n

no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court

of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.” Plaintiff became subject to section 1915(g) on January 25, 2010, when his third

action was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted. Because Plaintiff 1

is subject to section 1915(g) and does not meet the imminent danger exception, Plaintiff is not

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(C).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

on the appeal filed on February 12, 2010;

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4)(C), this order serves as

notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of

the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal;

and

///

The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases: 1:08-cv-01187-DGC Williams v. Sullivan, et al.,

1

(E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 07/01/2009 for failure to state a claim), 2:03-cv-02044-LKK-JFM Williams v. Sandham, et

al., (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 08/07/2009 for failure to state a claim), and 1:09-cv-00118-OWW-SMS Williams v.

Schulties, et al., (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 01/25/2010 for failure to state a claim).

2

Case 1:09-cv-00118-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00118-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 3