Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00043-1/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 

YASIR MEHMOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDRIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0043 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a qui tam action under the federal 

False Claims Act. Judgment was entered in this action on June 23, 2015. ECF No. 12. On June 

30, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.1 ECF No. 15. He then proceeded to file a motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff did not seek or obtain in 

forma pauperis status prior to judgment in this case. 

 The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows: 

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the 

district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court 

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find 

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). After review of plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:15-cv-00043-JAM-AC Document 19 Filed 08/20/15 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

the court finds, nunc pro tunc, that plaintiff is entitled to in forma pauperis status in the district 

court. However, after review of the record herein, the court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is not 

taken in good faith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal is denied. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff is, nunc pro tunc, granted in forma pauperis status in the district court. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 17) is denied. See 

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

DATED: August 19, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez____________________ 

 John A. Mendez, U. S. District Court Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00043-JAM-AC Document 19 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2